Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BOOTLE EXTENSION BILL (By Order)

SOUTH SHIELDS EXTENSION BILL (By Order)

SUNDERLAND EXTENSION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Strength

Mr. George Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of married Regulars, officers and men, serving with the Royal Air Force on 1st January, 1950.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The number of married Regular officers and men serving with the Royal Air Force on 1st January, 1950, was 14,655 and 39,506 respectively.

Gratuities

Lieut. Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will amend the existing regulations governing the extended service scheme for aircrew so as to provide that in the case of the death of an airman, whilst serving on the Regular portion of an extended service engagement, a proportionate part of the gratuity which would have been due to him on the normal expiration of his service may be paid to his heirs.

Mr. A. Henderson: Gratuities are normally payable on completion of the requisite number of years service. This applies to all forms of resettlement gratuity in all three Services. In these

circumstances, I regret that I cannot take a unilateral decision in this matter.

Lieut. Commander Hutchison: Is it not rather hard that the dependants of an airman killed on duty are excluded from receiving any part of this gratuity?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir, I think it is hard, but it has always been the rule that no payment should be made in the event of death before the date of qualification, and that is a rule that I cannot alter unilaterally.

Lieut. Commander Hutchison: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman look into this further, because this rule only applies to the Air Force, and does not apply to the other Services?

Mr. Henderson: It applies to soldiers, sailors or airmen killed on duty before the date on which they would otherwise qualify for a gratuity.

Recruitment

Mr. G. Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of Regular recruits to the Royal Air Force in each of the years 1927 to 1938, and 1946 to 1949.

Mr. A. Henderson: As the answer consists of a long list of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The numbers of Regular recruits to the Royal Air Force in the years mentioned were as follow:


1927
3,450


1928
3,100


1929
3,200


1930
2,950


1931
2,500


1932
1,300


1933
1,500


1934
2,900


1935
10,100


1936
12,750


1937
13,500


1938
26,950


1946
31,303


1947
33,311


1948
13,612


1949
12,180


The above figures cover airmen only. In addition, in 1949, 9,630 airwomen entered the Women's Royal Air Force either direct from civil life or by transfer from the Women's Auxiliary Air Force.

Airfield, Dumfries

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) what steps are being taken to maintain the runways at Tinwold Downs Airfield, Dumfries;
(2) what are his plans in regard to the future of Tinwold Downs Airfield, Dumfries; and whether he will consult with the local planning authority in Dumfries before coming to a final decision.

Mr. A. Henderson: No maintenance is being carried out on the runways of this airfield as it is not at present in flying use. It has been allocated for long term flying purposes with the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will certainly be consulted again if any change in these plans is proposed.

Mr. Macpherson: Does that mean that it has been allocated for civil aviation use or for Air Ministry use for long-term flying purposes? Although it is not proposed to maintain the runways, will they at any rate be protected from unnecessary deterioration and damage?

Mr. Henderson: The long-term use is a matter entirely for the Air Ministry.

THE NUMBERS OF AIRMEN DECLARED DESERTERS FROM THE ROYAL AIR FORCE IN 1939 AND 1949 WERE AS FOLLOW:


—
1939
1949


All airmen
Regular airmen
National Service airmen
All airmen


January
…
…
…
…
15
37
14
51


February
…
…
…
…
4
47
14
61


March
…
…
…
…
3
49
17
66


April
…
…
…
…
6
37
13
50


May
…
…
…
…
7
43
19
62


June
…
…
…
…
6
32
14
46


July
…
…
…
…
4
35
13
48


August
…
…
…
…
14
31
16
47


September
…
…
…
…
6
69
14
83


October
…
…
…
…
6
34
6
40


November
…
…
…
…
3
34
4
38


December
…
…
…
…
6
19
3
22


TOTAL
…
…
…
80
467
147
614

Overseas Postings (Families)

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Secretary of State for Air what arrangements are made for the families of airmen posted overseas who are required as a result to vacate married quarters at Royal Air Force stations.

and has been decided on strategic grounds. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Civil Aviation is joint user with my Department, and they will certainly come into the picture if there is any question of maintaining the runways for use in the future.

Deserters

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Air what was the number of airmen declared deserters each month in the years 1939 and 1949, showing for 1949 airmen serving on Regular engagements and National Service men separately.

Mr. A. Henderson: As the answer comprises a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: Could the Minister say whether the rate of desertion is higher among National Service men or Regulars?

Mr. Henderson: Last year, the number of Regular airmen who deserted was 467 and National Service men, 147.

Following is the answer:

Mr. A. Henderson: Families of airmen posted overseas may, when required to vacate married quarters, be accommodated at personnel transit camps until they secure other accommodation or join the husbands at their overseas stations.

Mr. Haire: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that by the very nature of their mobility these airmen's families sacrifice their claim to local housing? Would he not consider that where such camp arrangements are not possible additional allowance should be given to enable these families to take furnished accommodation, at any rate, temporarily?

Mr. Henderson: I am glad to be able to say that to date the accommodation available in these personnel transit stations has been adequate to meet all the demands.

Mr. Haire: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise how disturbing it can be to the education of a young family, through having to move from district to district?

Mr. Henderson: I am afraid that it is one of the penalties that has, unfortunately, to be accepted by those who belong to our Defence Services.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AIRWAYS (AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if the system of civil airways in which positive air traffic control will be exercised, is now in operation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Beswick): Not yet, Sir. It is hoped that the first of the proposed airways from London to Strumble Head on the Pembroke coast will be opened within the next two months.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA

Peace Treaty

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress being made towards the conclusion of a peace treaty with Austria.

The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): Yes, Sir. After the measure of agreement reached on the Austrian Treaty at the Conference of Foreign Ministers last June considerable progress was made in the Deputies' negotiations during the summer and autumn. Only five articles

remain unsettled, but since November the conclusion of the Treaty has been prevented by the refusal of the Soviet representative to discuss one of these articles. A further meeting of the Deputies is to be held on 26th April, and my right hon. Friend will continue his efforts to secure at the earliest possible moment an agreement which will lead to the restoration of the independence of Austria.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what the Government's policy is with regard to the restoration of the stable economy in Austria, on which ultimately her freedom is bound to depend?

Mr. Younger: That is rather a wider question than the one which is on the Paper, and which relates to the progress made toward the conclusion of a peace treaty.

Mr. Vane: What was the Article which the Soviet representative refused to discuss?

Mr. Younger: It is Article 48 (bis), which covers a Soviet claim for services and supplies at the beginning of the occupation.

Professor Savory: Is the meeting to which the Minister is referring not the 252nd meeting? Is it not a fact that all this time practically no real progress has been made, owing to Soviet obstruction?

Mr. Younger: I cannot say whether or not it is the 252nd meeting, but it certainly is the case that we have had many meetings and are very disappointed at the progress.

Arrests and Deportations

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that 750 Austrian subjects have been kidnapped and carried off by the Russian authorities in Vienna; and whether he will make a further protest on this subject to the Allied Commission in Vienna and demand the return of these people.

Mr. Younger: I am aware that since 1945 considerable numbers of Austrian citizens have been arrested by the Soviet authorities in Vienna and in the Soviet zone of occupation. Many have been summarily sentenced and deported to the


Soviet Union. The British Member of the Allied Council for Austria has frequently protested against such arrests and deportations, but his representations and those of his United States and French colleagues have been rejected. Further protests will be made as the occasion demands, and I should be glad to consider any information which the hon. Member may have in his possession.

Professor Savory: Have His Majesty's Government made a protest against the kidnapping of some of the very highest Austrian officials, such as the head of the Ministry of Transport, the head of the Ministry of Reconstruction, and a very high official in the Ministry of the Interior?

Mr. Younger: I think I ought to have notice of those cases, but I believe that we have protested in all of them.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOVIET EMBASSY, LONDON (STAFF)

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been received from the Soviet Embassy to the note delivered on behalf of His Majesty's Government on the subject of the disappearance of a large number of Soviet officials from the Soviet Embassy.

Mr. Younger: The Soviet Embassy have hardly had time to reply to the last inquiry addressed to them on this subject, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that this question will not be lost sight of.

Mr. Blackburn: Have there not been well-authenticated reports that in cases of this kind officials do, in fact, disappear and become spies? Will my hon. Friend please bring this matter to the notice of the Soviet authorities as it is of great importance and causes many doubts and much disquiet?

Mr. Younger: I do not wish to comment upon what my hon. Friend says. We are already making inquiries, and we are not going to let this matter lie. We are awaiting a reply.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Are any of these people actually in receipt of diplomatic immunity? If so, is any inquiry made before the immunity is granted to somebody else?

Mr. Younger: I should like to have notice of that question. I do not think, that I have the exact details here.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Are there any well-authenticated instances of a man who has disappeared in these circumstances becoming a spy?

Mr. Blackburn: Yes.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Can the Minister tell the House whether any of the members of the Soviet Embassy who disappeared have actually left this country, or whether they are roaming about at large within this island?

Oral Answers to Questions — CORFU CHANNEL INCIDENT (COMPENSATION)

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the machinery by which His Majesty's Government propose to obtain payment from the Albanian Government in respect of damages awarded against Albania by The Hague Court, as a result of the mining of two of His Majesty's ships in the Corfu Channel; and whether a date has, yet been fixed for discussing the payment of these damages.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when, where, and with whom discussions are to take place with a view to obtaining payment of the damages awarded to this country by The Hague Court on the grounds of the mining by Albania of two of His Majesty's ships in the Corfu Channel.

Mr. Younger: Discussions over the payment of damages in the Corfu case will, I hope, begin in Paris shortly after Easter. They will be conducted by those persons who were the agents of the two Governments in the proceedings before The Hague Court.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance, now that the award of The Hague Court has been made, that there will be no bargaining about the actual lump sum involved?

Mr. Younger: We have to enter discussions as to how this sum ought to be


paid. We stand on our rights that we are entitled to be paid the sum that The Hague Court has awarded to us.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the hon. Gentleman at least give the assurance asked for by my hon. Friend that the amount awarded by the Court will not be departed from?

Mr. Younger: We shall not depart from our claim that the money awarded shall be paid. What we have to discuss is how the sum shall be paid.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the Minister make clear what it is that is to be discussed by these agents? Is it to be the mere manner of payment, the channel of payment, or the kind of currency or instrument that is to be received? What is to be discussed? How far or how nearly are these agents plenipotentiaries?

Mr. Younger: They have to discuss the payment which has been awarded by the Court. The Albanian Government have, quite wrongly in our view, denied the right of the Court to fix a particular sum, but have expressed willingness to enter discussions about the payment—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."]—while we have to do our best to see that the sum is paid. We are to have our first discussion shortly after Easter in Paris.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Could the hon. Gentleman answer the question a little more fully and tell the House who are the agents acting on behalf of His Majesty's Government and the Albanian Government?

Mr. Younger: Yes, Sir. The representative of His Majesty's Government is Sir Eric Beckett, who is legal adviser to the Foreign Office. The agent on the Albanian side is Mr. Shyvlla, the Albanian agent in Paris.

Sir Herbert Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman look up the Foreign Office records to see what Lord Palmerston did in 1851 in the case of Don Pacifico—a very similar case?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINE RAILWAYS (BRITISH EMPLOYEES)

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why British nationals employed on the Argentine Railways are not allowed to send remittances to their dependants in this country, contrary to the agreement

reached with the Argentine when the railway was handed over; and what was the average annual value of such remittances prior to their prohibition by the Argentine Government.

Mr. Younger: The Agreement of Sale concluded on 13th February, 1947, between Sir Montague Eddy, representing the British-owned railways and the Argentine Government, did not guarantee the right to remit allowances overseas to dependants of British railway employees. These and similar remittances are governed by Argentine exchange laws and regulations. This was the case even when the railways were in British ownership. As regards the second part of the Question, the figures required are not separately classified and the average annual value of these allowances cannot be established from the sources of information at my disposal.

Mr. Galbraith: Does that answer mean that the Minister is satisfied with the present state of affairs? Is it not a fact that Italian and Spanish nationals are being more favourably treated than British nationals in this matter? In view of the hardship which is being caused to dependants of British nationals employed by Argentine Railways will he not do something to try to deal with this matter in isolation from other currency problems affecting the two countries?

Mr. Younger: It certainly does not mean that we are satisfied with the present position, but it is, unfortunately, the case that we have reason to believe that there has been some discrimination in favour of other nationals. We have made complaints about it and we are trying to deal with the position. In reply to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, whether we can deal with it in isolation, it is rather difficult. There are a good many matters under discussion at the moment, but we shall not lose sight of this one. I doubt whether it can be dealt with in complete isolation.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH MISSIONS (PERSONNEL)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs during what period were Major Peter Wright, Major James Klugman, Mrs. Betty Wallace and Mr. Kenneth Svers employed on British missions abroad;


and when were their appointments terminated.

Mr. Younger: Major Peter Wright was employed as Assistant Military Attaché at Belgrade from January, 1945, to October, 1947. Major Norman John Klugman (also known as James Klugman) was sent by His Majesty's Government to Yugoslavia in late 1944 with a military liaison mission. The duties of this mission were taken over by the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, to which Major Klugman was transferred in April, 1945, and with which he continued to serve until 1946. Mrs. Betty Wallace is understood also to have served in the U.N.R.R.A. Mission to Yugoslavia; she was at no time employed by His Majesty's Government.
At the end of 1943, when Yugoslavia was occupied by German forces, Mr. Kenneth Syers was seconded from the R.A.F., in which he held a commission, and undertook a mission to Marshal Tito with the hon. and gallant Member for Lancaster (Mr. F. Maclean). He stayed in Yugoslavia until October, 1944.

Sir W. Smithers: Can the Minister say what steps, if any, were taken to ensure that the four persons mentioned in the Question were not Communist agents either before or during their service?

Mr. Younger: I think I can say that His Majesty's Government are satisfied that in none of these cases was anything done which was contrary to the national interest. The hon. Member will have observed that there is only one out of these four cases in which the appointment under His Majesty's Government continued after the end of the war.

Mr. Pickthorn: Are we to conclude from the last part of the hon. Gentleman's answer that he thinks that persons in the employ, or who had been in the employ, of the Comintern could not do damage to the national interest during the war, and is it not a fact that Mr. Syers, before the appointment of which the Minister of State has just told us, had been in charge of Intelligence at Bari and that at the same time Major Klugman was the person in charge at Cairo, so that through the hands of these two men there came or did not come any information from Yugoslavia?

Mr. Speaker: That is giving information, not asking a question.

Sir W. Smithers: If we cannot get an answer to that question, I will ask Question No. 15.

Oral Answers to Questions — WESTERN EUROPE (DEFENCE)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will invite the Governments of Western Europe to form a Joint Department of Psychological Warfare as an integral part of Western defence.

Mr. Younger: No, Sir.

Sir W. Smithers: When will His Majesty's Government wake up to the real menace of Communism at home and abroad, and realise that it is deeds, not words, that we want?

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN (PEACE TREATY)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received the draft for a peace treaty with Japan promised by the United States for the beginning of 1950; and what proposals has the United States Government made to His Majesty's Government on this subject since February, 1950.

Mr. Younger: I know of no undertaking by the United States Government to communicate to His Majesty's Government the draft of a treaty of peace with Japan, and no such draft has been received. The answer to the second part of the Question is "None, Sir."

Mr. Teeling: Is it not true that before the Foreign Secretary went to Colombo there was an understanding that something was to come from the United States as to what their plans were for a peace treaty? Are we to be assured that the United States is doing something at present to get on with that?

Mr. Younger: That proposition is rather different from the Question put on the Order Paper. We are in constant discussion on the diplomatic level with the United States about the preparations


for a peace treaty with Japan. I was asked whether we had received a draft of the peace treaty, which was a different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEXICO (TRADE NEGOTIATIONS)

Mr. Peter Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the existing exchange difficulties, he will take steps to negotiate a trade and payments agreement with the Mexican Government.

Mr. Younger: Views are being exchanged with the Mexican Government about the possibility of expanding trade between the two countries. I am not yet in a position to disclose any detailed information.

Mr. Smithers: Is it not a fact that these negotiations have been going on for at least 18 months, and that we drew back from them at one time because we were afraid of offending the United States? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that in the present circumstances this is a suitable moment to press the negotiations and bring them to a conclusion?

Mr. Younger: It is a fact that there were negotiations which had to be broken off. As I have said, we are in discussion about this at present. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question a little later I might then be in a position to say something.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (PARA-MILITARY FORMATIONS)

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has received as to the formation of para-military formations in the Soviet zone of Germany, in particular as to the Freie Deutsche Jugend; and what protest has been made to the Soviet authorities for their breaches of the demilitarisation clauses of the Potsdam Agreement and other agreements.

Mr. Younger: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) on 13th March. The latest reports on the expansion, equipment and training of para

military forces in the Soviet zone of Germany are being carefully considered by the authorities of the Western occupying Powers in Germany, and I am not therefore able to make a further statement at this stage.

Mr. Blackburn: In view of the very alarming statements made by Mr. McCloy, will my hon. Friend see that at the earliest possible moment we know what is the size of these para-military formations or their estimated size, according to our reports?

Mr. Younger: This matter is being very carefully investigated. I can assure my hon. Friend that no time will be wasted, but we do not want to make protests unless we feel we can make them in an effective manner.

Oral Answers to Questions — LATIN AMERICAN REPUBLICS (BRITISH RESIDENTS)

Mr. Peter Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of current exchange and other restrictions, he will call for a report upon the financial and other problems of permanent British residents in the Latin American Republics.

Mr. Younger: No, Sir. If the hon. Member has any particular problems in mind, my right hon. Friend will be pleased to consider them.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY, ROUMANIA AND BULGARIA (PEACE TREATIES)

Mr. Haire: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he now proposes arising out of the report of the International Court at The Hague on the question of the Human Rights Clauses of the peace treaties with Hungary, Roumania and Bulgaria.

Mr. Younger: No action is appropriate at present. The Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations of 22nd October, 1949, referred four questions to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion, of which two have now been answered in the affirmative. The remaining two only fall to be answered if, after a lapse of 30 days from 30th March, the date of the delivery


of the first opinion, the Governments of Hungary, Bulgaria and Roumania, have still failed to appoint their members to the various Peace Treaty Commissions. In that event the International -Court of Justice will proceed to give its opinion on the last two points, involving the question whether competent Commissions can be formed without members appointed by the three Governments.

Mr. Haire: Is my hon. Friend aware of the continued violation of the Human Rights Clauses of these peace treaties and, indeed, of the worsening of the situation in Eastern Europe? Is he aware, for example, of the disappearance of British and other nationals almost daily, and will he do something to expedite this matter?

Mr. Younger: I think my right hon. Friend has said on many occasions that he is most dissatisfied with the observance of human rights in these countries, but, as I have explained, this matter is at the moment in the hands of the International Court and for 30 days from 30th March at any rate it must be left to them.

Lord John Hope: Can we have from the Minister of State what he considers to be "a protest in an effective manner," because this Question rather ties up with the other one?

Oral Answers to Questions — FAR EASTERN COMMISSION (JAPANESE TAX BILL)

Mr. Paton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the United Kingdom representative on the Far Eastern Commission was consulted before approval was given by General MacArthur to the introduction by the Japanese Government of the Special Tax Bill, which levies a 55 per cent. tax on the earned incomes of foreigners resident in Japan.

Mr. Younger: General MacArthur has consulted neither His Majesty's Government nor the Far Eastern Commission about the Japanese Government's new Tax Bill, nor was it incumbent upon him to do so. The functions of the Far Eastern Commission, as laid down in the terms of reference, are to formulate broad policies and not to intervene in the day to day administration of Japan. The full

text of the new Bill has not yet been received, and I should prefer to make no statement until I have seen it.

Mr. Paton: Is it not extraordinary that the Supreme Commander in Japan should take to himself the authority to sanction a Bill which will probably make it completely impossible for foreign companies to continue to operate in that territory?

Mr. Younger: As I have said, I would prefer not to make a statement before I have seen the Bill. It is not even clear at the moment that the Bill necessarily requires the sanction of the Supreme Commander.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Is it not a matter of broad policy, as mentioned by the Minister of State, that a decision should go forward—which should have had the attention of the Commission—which must have the effect, in the end, of thrusting out of Japan nearly every foreign firm?

Mr. Teeling: It is not true that these recommendations were in the Shute Report and have been published for a long time, and that the actual tax of 55 per cent. is nothing more than what the Japanese and the Americans are being asked to pay? Is it not equally true that "The Times" report and the "Manchester Guardian" report of Saturday are looked upon by authorities as being inaccurate and, possibly, wilfully inaccurate?

Mr. Younger: I think that supplementary question illustrates the wisdom of waiting until we actually see what the proposal is in detail.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ (BRITISH LOAN)

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, on the granting of a loan by His Majesty's Government of £3,000,000 recently to Iraq, part of the security for repayment was a charge on royalties for oil; what portion of this oil is expected to come through Haifa; and what steps he is taking in this respect.

Mr. Younger: Yes, Sir. As far as the second part of the Question is concerned, this depends on the reopening of the Haifa pipeline, and on this I have as yet


nothing to add to the answer given on 20th March to the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. De Chair).

Mr. Janner: Does not my hon. Friend realise that before loans of this kind are made, or before arms are supplied to Iraq, an arrangement should be made whereby at least the taxpayers of this country should benefit by the oil being allowed to come to Haifa? No such arrangement should be made unless and until we are sure it can be carried into effect.

Mr. Younger: This arrangement was thought, and is thought, to be in the interests of this country, and if we had attempted to lay down the conditions suggested it might not have been possible to enter into it.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that one of the biggest obstacles to the pipeline to Haifa being reopened has been the fact that the Israeli Government will not give an assurance to the Iraqi Government that oil will not be used for war purposes?

Oral Answers to Questions — ATOMIC ENERGY (CONTROL)

Mr. S. Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will arrange to publish as a White Paper the official proposals of the various powers made to the United Nations relating to the international inspection and control of atomic energy and atomic weapons, together with such explanatory comment as has been offered in their support and such other comment as he may think advisable.

Mr. Younger: No, Sir. The reports of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission containing the proposals made by the various Powers, including a full exposition of His Majesty's Government's views, and the records of the meetings of the Commission, at which the views of members were expressed, are all on sale at His Majesty's Stationery Office.
In addition, His Majesty's Government, with the Governments of the United States, France, China and Canada issued a statement on 26th October, 1949, on the six-Power consultations. This statement

set out the difference of position between the five Powers on the one hand and the Soviet Union on the other and explained why the five Powers supported the "majority proposals" and found the Soviet proposals inadequate. The five-Power statement was published as United Nations document, and is obtainable at His Majesty's Stationery Office or the United Nations London Information Centre.

Mr. Silverman: Does my hon. Friend realise that there are large numbers of responsible people who would like to form their own views upon the originals, and that they have not either the time or the facilities to make the considerable research that would be necessary for them to trace the documents through all the channels to which my hon. Friend refers?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate that all these original documents and the account of the discussions are voluminous, but, the last document to which I referred—the Five-Power statement—is a reasonably concise statement setting out the rival views and the issues at stake, and I think my hon. Friend will find that a fairly convenient form in which to study them.

Mr. Blackburn: But is my hon. Friend aware that even those of us who have been studying this matter as much as we can for five years find it exceedingly difficult to discover exactly where the differences exist? May I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider this matter, because, we ought to make our position quite clear to the whole country?

Mr. Younger: I will certainly consider that, but the last document to which I referred sets out fairly clearly what are the differences.

Mr. Silverman: But does not my hon. Friend agree that the last document to which he referred—though I have no doubt that it was carefully and objectively prepared—nevertheless puts the different views and proposals from the point of view of one side, and that many people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—would like to see in a readily accessible form the actual proposals and the actual arguments in favour of them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech:"]—on the part, of, those who made them?

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (JAPANESE TEXTILES)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the serious Japanese competition existing in East Africa as regards textiles; and what steps he is taking to safeguard British interests in the textile market in that country.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): I am aware of the figures of imports of textiles into East Africa. These show that imports of cotton textiles from Japan in 1949 were less than one-third of those in 1939, while imports from this country were four times as large as those in 1939. Within the total allocation to each Colony of sterling for purchases in Japan, the quantity of textile imports to be licensed is a matter for the Colonial Governments to decide in the light of the territories' requirements. I am going further into this matter with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Japanese imports are steadily increasing? Will he take drastic action now, before it is too late to protect our home industries?

Mr. Griffiths: I know that imports from Japan are increasing. As I have said, I am in consultation with the President of the Board of Trade about the matter.

Sir Peter Macdonald: Will the Minister encourage certain British firms who are anxious to start textile industries in East Africa, who have been hampered at every turn by ordinances and regulations? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that they are given their licences and allowed to get on with the job at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Griffiths: That is another matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA (TOBACCO PRODUCTION)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress there has been in the plans for increasing tobacco production in the railing belt of Northern Rhodesia; and what action he proposes to accelerate this development.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I have asked the Governor for the details of the progress made since my predecessor wrote to the hon. Member on 27th October, and will write to him as soon as I receive the reply.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: In view of the importance to this country of the increase in this crop, will the right hon. Gentleman see that urgent action is taken?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, as soon as I receive the reply I will go into the matter fully.

Sir H. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the words "railing belt" mean?

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA

Offices, London

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made with the establishment of West African offices and showrooms for West African information and products in London.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Nigerian Government hope to open a Nigerian Office in London in May. Plans are also being made for the opening of a Gold Coast Office, but no date can yet be given. The Sierra Leone and Gambia Governments have not reached any decision in this matter.

Mr. Sorensen: Would it not be possible to have a more effective display of these goods if all the Colonies in West Africa were to unite for this purpose?

Mr. Griffiths: That is a matter for them to decide, but there is much to be said for the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

Illegal Strikes (Sentences)

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet been able to review the sentence of 12 months' imprisonment passed upon Kwame N'Kruma, head of the People's Convention Party in the Gold Coast, as well as sentences passed upon trade union leaders, for inciting illegal strikes; and whether he will take steps to secure that they are treated as political prisoners, with facilities to read books and to write.

Mr. J. Griffiths: It is for the Governor, in whom the prerogative is vested, to


review these cases if he thinks fit: and I am not in a position to intervene. I should, of course, bring to the Governor's notice any representations made to me in the matter. The treatment of prisoners is a matter for decision in accordance with local rules.

Mr. Brockway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in an earlier reply the Colonial Office said that they would look into the question of a review of these sentences?

Mr. Griffiths: If my hon. Friend asks me, I will myself look into this matter, but it is a matter to be decided locally.

Groundnuts (Stocks)

Mr. W. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent he hopes to reduce the stocks of groundnuts lying only partially protected at Kano and other West African storage areas during the year 1950.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how far the transport arrears have been overtaken in the groundnut position at Kano, Nigeria.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Practically all the 1948–49 crop has now been moved, and if the railway is able to carry out its present programme the current crop will be cleared before November, when the new crop begins to come in.

Mr. Fletcher: Does that mean that the railway is now able to bear, without any extra wagons or engines, the crop as it comes forward and that there will be no further congestion?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Edward Davies: Will there be any deterioration of the stocks which are still in hand?

Mr. Griffiths: My information is that the present rolling stock will be adequate to carry out the programme.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Federation Proposals

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to make known to the people of the British West Indies the advantages,

political and economic, which are likely to accrue to them if the federation proposals are adopted.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Report of the Standing Closer Association Committee is in itself a comprehensive exposition of the political and economic issues involved in Federation. On the day of its publication I commended it, in a message to the peoples of the West Indies, to their Legislatures for serious examination and discussion. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of that message.

Sugar Estates, Jamaica

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the labour disturbances which have taken place on certain sugar estates in Jamaica.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. There have been several strikes this year. Two have been complicated by rivalry between unions. The Trades Union Congress of Jamaica claims representation of the workers on several estates. But since 1941 the Sugar Manufacturers' Association has had agreements with the Bustamante Industrial Trades Union under which that Union has been accorded sole bargaining rights in the industry. The strike at Caymanas sugar factory was settled after a few days when the Bustamante Industrial Trades Union ordered workers to resume. The strike at Worthy Park, where the management has refused to negotiate with the Trades Union Congress, is still in progress.

Mr. Gammans: Would my right hon. Friend say whether, as a result of these disturbances, there have been any acts of violence?

Mr. Griffiths: I think very few and very slight.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA

Sir Harold Briggs (Duties)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement defining the exact duties of Sir Harold Briggs and to what extent he has executive control over the military and police forces in Malaya.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Sir Harold Briggs will be responsible for the preparation of general plans for offensive action and for


the allocation of tasks to the various components of the security forces. In consultation with the heads of the police and Fighting Services he will decide priorities between these tasks and the general timing and sequence of their execution.
With regard to the second part of the Question, General Briggs will not be in direct command of troops or police. In consultation with the Commissioner of Police and the heads of the Fighting Services he will decide the tasks that the forces employed on anti-bandit operations are to carry out, but the Commissioner and the heads of the Fighting Services will, of course, remain responsible for the administration and discipline of their forces and for aspects of their work not directly connected with the anti-bandit campaign. Various matters regarding his duties and responsibility will be decided in Malaya.

Mr. Gammans: Does that mean that General Briggs has executive responsibility for taking action against the bandits, but not executive control over the police or troops?

Mr. Griffiths: It is a civil appointment. He has responsibility to the Commissioner. His task will be to co-ordinate the activities of the police and the Fighting Services.

Mr. Gammans: What does the word "co-ordination" mean exactly in that connection?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the Minister tell us what is this gentleman's salary?

Mr. Griffiths: Not without notice.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give some rather fuller explanation of this important subject during the discussion tomorrow?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir.

War Damage (Compensation)

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any persons or firms in Malaya have yet received compensation in respect of war losses from His Majesty's Government; and, if not, when payments will begin.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Interim payment of war damage compensation under the Malayan War Damage Compensation scheme started on 18th March.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in the distribution of these funds, nearly £20 million of which are provided by the taxpayer here, the directives as to their use sent out by the Colonial Office will be followed closely by the local agencies responsible for their allocation and distribution?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir.

Communist Activities, Singapore

Mr. W. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to deal with the new factor of serious Communist attempts at wreckage on the Island of Singapore.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am aware that in recent weeks a few grenades have been thrown in the Colony. The Police Force, which has been steadily modernised with the latest weapons and equipment, has succeeded in forestalling any serious outbreaks of terrorism and is alive to the danger of an attempt to spread disorder to Singapore.

Mr. Fletcher: Would the right hon. Gentleman say—if not now, tomorrow—what steps much greater than those he has mentioned are to be taken to protect the vital interests of the port and other installations on the Island of Singapore itself?

Mr. Griffiths: My present information is that the steps which have been taken are proving successful.

Mr. Gammans: Can the Minister say why it is that terrorism, which, hitherto, has not' occurred on the Island of Singapore, has now occurred there?

Mr. Griffiths: There have been only a few incidents, and I do not think we would serve any good purpose by magnifying them.

Official Insurance Scheme

Mr. W. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in the preparation of the official insurance scheme for Malaya and Singapore, which it would be necessary to bring into action immediately after the declaration of a state of emergency.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I have recently asked the Malayan Governments for a report on the progress of local discussions on this matter, and I will inform the hon. Member as soon as I receive a reply.

Mr. Fletcher: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the difficulty arises from the refusal of local authorities to undertake any such scheme unless it is self-balancing, and that if we are not to see the flow of rubber and tin from Malaya stopped as incidents become worse he will have to guarantee such a scheme in some form or other?

Mr. Griffiths: I am aware of the urgency of this matter. I am very anxious that it should be completed as soon as possible, as I have indicated to those concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Racial Discrimination

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what legal forms of racial discrimination there are in any of the Colonies.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In 1947, Colonial Governments were asked to carry out a factual survey of the extent to which legislation in their territories discriminated between different races, more especially between Europeans and non-Europeans. The surveys have now been broadly completed and the results are now being analysed.

Mr. Brockway: Can my right hon. Friend say how soon these results are likely to be made public?

Mr. Griffiths: It is hoped that the survey will be completed in June.

Banned Book

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the book, "Africa—Britain's Third Empire," by George Padmore, has been banned in Uganda and the Gold Coast; and the reasons for this decision.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. The importation of the book was prohibited by the Governors of these Territories, under the powers vested in them by law to take that action where such importation would

be contrary to the public interest. The decision is for the Governors.

Mr. Brockway: Would my right hon. Friend indicate to the Governors that the banning of books in this way is contrary to the British way of life and, indeed, to the Charter of the United Nations?

Mr. Griffiths: This is a matter for the Governors themselves to decide.

Mr. Sorensen: But could not the Minister communicate with the Governors pointing out that if this book is dangerous in the Gold Coast it is far more dangerous in Nigeria, where there are many more people than in the Gold Coast? Can we have an assurance that books of this kind, which are critical of the British Empire, will not be banned because of that criticism?

Mr. John Hay: Does the Minister realise that this book contains a violent attack upon British Colonial administration, and will he accept the congratulations of many of us on his very wise decision?

Mr. Griffiths: I have just started reading the book myself, and I suspend judgment until I have completely read it.

Trade Union Leader (Detention)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that Chege Kibachia, a trade union leader, has been detained for re-education in the Rift Valley Province of Kenya since September, 1947; whether his re-education is now considered to be complete; and how soon he will be released from these restrictions.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Chege Kibachia was detained in 1947 because he was conducting himself so as to be dangerous to peace and good order. His case is at present under review by the Government of Kenya.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH HONDURAS

Mr. Peter Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the adverse criticisms of the Colonial Development Corporation made by the Governor of British Honduras in his review of the state of the Colony on


20th December, 1949; and what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to deal with the criticisms there made.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am aware that the Governor expressed some disappointment with the progress made. Since then, and following the re-valuation of the British Honduras dollar on 31st December last, the Colonial Development Corporation have announced the resumption of work on their development projects.

Mr. Smithers: In view of the manifold difficulties of this very loyal Colony, what steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to make sure that there is no ground for future complaint?

Mr. Griffiths: I hope that the hon. Member heard the announcement this week about the new proposal for guaranteeing sugar supplies from British Honduras.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIALISED INDUSTRIES (QUESTIONS)

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Lord President of the Council if he is aware that the present Government policy whereby Ministers refuse to answer Parliamentary Questions dealing with the day-to-day administration of nationalised industries frequently deprives hon. Members of the opportunity of challenging Ministers on matters of public importance; and if he will consider referring the matter to an all-party committee for examination and report.

Mr Bossom: asked the Lord President of the Council, as there is so much of the taxpayers' money involved in the activities of the various nationalised industries, if he will take steps to change the policy whereby Ministers refuse to answer Questions dealing with matters of importance connected with such activities.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Government are anxious that there shall be all reasonable opportunities for Parliamentary discussion of the socialised industries, but the admission of Questions on day-to-day administration would be inconsistent with the principle that the boards shall be free from detailed Ministerial or Parliamentary supervision of their commercial operations.

I think, however, that the hon. Gentleman may have overlooked the Ruling which Mr. Speaker gave on 7th June, 1948, when he said that he would be prepared to exercise his discretion to direct the acceptance of Questions asking for a statement to be made on matters about which information had been previously refused, provided that, in his opinion, the matters were of sufficient public importance to justify this concession. The hon. Members may also have under-estimated the opportunities for putting Questions down under the existing rules.
The matters on which Ministers are answerable to Parliament and on which Questions can be put down in the normal course vary with the different socialised industries and the different socialisation Statutes.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Nationalised.

Mr. Morrison: I ask the Opposition not to engage in these philosophical arguments. But in each case they cover a wide range and, in addition to matters of general policy, broadly they include the responsibilities of Ministers in connection with—among other matters—the appointment, salaries and conditions of service of board members; programmes of research and development; programmes of education and training; borrowing by the boards; form of accounts and audits; annual reports; pensions schemes and compensation for displacement; the appointment of consumers' councils and other matters connected with their organisation and operation. Under Mr. Speaker's Ruling, Questions may also be put down about matters of "public importance" for answer at the Minister's discretion, even though they deal with points for which he has no specific responsibility.
No useful purpose would, in my opinion, be served by referring the subject to a committee. I do not follow the statement of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom), about so much of the taxpayers' money being involved in the activities of the various nationalised industries.

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for example, passenger services on considerable stretches of railway in rural parts of Scotland are being


cut; that when I sought to put questions to the Minister on these matters of public importance to thousands of people the Questions were turned down; that that type of problem is not unusual; and that, therefore, there does seem to be, in the national interests, a case for reviewing the present procedure in the House?

Mr. Morrison: As regards transport, I think the hon. Gentleman is on a weak point. As far as the Transport Commission are concerned, they have dealt, by correspondence—in which, I think, hon. Members perhaps get more satisfaction sometimes than by Questions to Ministers—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Let this be considered apart from sheer partisan political prejudice. This is another example of sheer political prejudice where it ought not to arise.
The Transport Commission have dealt, in letters from Members of Parliament, with no fewer than 3,300 questions and representations which have been put forward. The great majority would, alternatively, have been subject to Parliamentary Questions, on which, I am perfectly sure, hon. Members would not have got as much satisfaction. Moreover, as far as transport is concerned, the House has had an opportunity of no fewer than three Debates in the last four months and a number of shorter Debates on the Adjournment.

Mr. Henry Strauss: When the right hon. Gentleman says "socialised industries "does he mean, "nationalised industries"? If so, is he aware that "nationalised" is the term used in the statutes and not "socialised"? Can he say why he takes such great care to avoid all mention of nationalisation?

Mr. Morrison: If I may say so, the hon. and learned Gentleman is not well fitted to draw a subtle distinction between "nationalised" and "socialised." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is not an occasion to debate the matter, but I think the term "socialised" is a perfectly legitimate term, and I think it is right that great public monopolies—great public concerns—should be the subject of social answerability as distinct from private monopolies, which answer to the antisocial irresponsibility—

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Stanley: To help those not so well fitted as the right hon. Gentleman to split these ideological straws, would he explain to us on these benches why, in describing one of these great public monopolies, he described it at the beginning of his answer as a socialised industry and, at the end, as a nationalised industry? Had it changed during that period?

Mr. Morrison: That is a perfect illustration of my tolerance and my broadness of view.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Would the right hon. Gentleman take the trouble to inform himself a little more accurately as to what is happening in the transport industry at present? Is he aware that the whole machinery for safeguarding the consumer has completely broken down and that no Question in connection with these diverse problems can get past the Table?

Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Member would approach these matters in less of the atmosphere of fierceness and partisan prejudice and more in the atmosphere of enlightened political science, he would do much better.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: In view of the difficulties in asking Questions about nationalised industries at Question Time, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that an inquiry is necessary in order to put them on to a uniform basis?

Mr. Stewart: In view of the unsatisfactory nature and the undemocratic spirit of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Mr. Russell: asked the Lord President of the Council what quantities of bricks, cement, timber and steel will be used in the construction of the car park and funfair which are being provided in Battersea Park in connection with the Festival of Britain.

Mr. H. A. Price: asked the Lord President of the Council what quantities of materials, steel, cement, softwoods, and bricks, respectively, which could otherwise have been used for the construction of houses and flats, will be used in the South Bank scheme of the Festival of Britain.

Mr. H. Morrison: If the Festival is to open successfully on time the entire staff must be allowed to devote all their energies to the task which has been assigned to them with the approval of all parties in this House. I am accordingly not prepared to instruct them to divert their efforts to the compilation of detailed estimates of this character.

Mr. Russell: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that the Battersea Park part of the Festival of Britain will in no way slow down the housing programme?

Mr. Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while thousands of tons of cement are being poured into the scheme, the housing programme in Lewisham, in which he and I have an interest, is held up owing to a cement famine? Will he see that builders in Lewisham get cement?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that is so. In any case, if the official Opposition wish to bring the Festival of Britain to an end—after all, it has big national purposes, with which we have all been associated—I think they ought to say so. In the meantime, I am entitled to the view that, because of the general spirit of the House in the last Parliament and the co-operation we achieved, the people who are running this Festival—which, I think, is of great national importance—ought to be protected against this sharpshooting?

Mr. Price: Since the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: We have had a lot of supplementaries on this Question.

Mr. Marlowe: On a point of Order. Questions Nos. 46 and 47 were answered together, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: I beg the hon. and learned Member's pardon. I did not notice that.

Mr. Russell: asked the Lord President of the Council to what extent it is proposed to hold demonstrations of British sports and games on the South Bank site during the Festival of Britain; what is the size of the ground on which they axe to be held; and how far representative sporting organisations were consulted before the ground was selected.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Festival Exhibition on the South Bank will deal prim-

arily with British achievements in the fields of science, technology and industrial design. There will be no demonstration of British sports and games as such, but British sports equipment will, so far as possible, be shown in action. A lawn, measuring 130 feet by 50 feet, besides the Sports Section, will be used for these demonstrations.

Mr. Russell: Is it a fact that on this pocket handkerchief sized lawn it is proposed to hold demonstrations of Rugby, Soccer, Cricket and Archery? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that a ground of that size is suitable for those sports?

Mr. Morrison: I have never seen a pocket handkerchief of this size, but we are co-operating with the various sports organisations so that British sports can, play their part on this great national occasion.

Sir H. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to display the transmigration of a Communist into a nationalised Minister?

Mr. Haire: Will my right hon. Friend see that Chelsea football team, and not Chelsea Borough Council, take part in this Festival?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Demobilisation Leave Pay

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will arrange that Regular Service men on discharge receive the whole of their demobilisation leave, pay at once.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): No, Sir. It is not always possible for a man's account to be closed by the day he leaves the Service, especially if he has come from overseas for discharge.

Dr. King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the case which prompted this Question is of a demobilised Regular Member of the Royal Air Force, who was given two weeks' demobilisation pay and had to wait more than a month for the rest of that month's pay? Does he not think that that is an injustice to one of our Regular men?

Mr. Shinwell: I think those details ought to be sent to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Air.

Service Police (Duties)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Defence if, in view of the crime wave, he will arrange with the authorities of the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force to allow their Service police, especially those who have passed examinations in civil law, to co-operate with the civilian police in their duties.

Mr. Shinwell: The Service police are always ready to help the civil police to the best of their ability, but their resources of manpower are limited and they are fully engaged on Service duties.

Sir W. Smithers: May I take it that the answer is "No"? Is it not a fact that the presence of a Socialist Government for five years in this country is the main reason for the demoralisation of our people and the crime wave?

Women's Services (Deserters)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Defence whether the 200 desertions a month include any women; and what desertions there are from the Women's Services.

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, Sir. The number of deserters from the Women's Royal Army Corps and the Women's Royal Air Force is, for each Service, about one a month.

Discharged Personnel (Pensions)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Defence what consideration he is giving to the pension rate of personnel discharged before 1st December, 1945, having regard to the increase in the cost of living since that date.

Mr. Shinwell: Members of the Forces discharged to pension before 19th December, 1945, were not eligible to benefit under the new code of retired pay and pensions which was introduced on that date. However, those who served during the late war have had their pensions reassessed to or towards the new rates, under a scheme announced in the House on 15th April, 1946. Those who did not serve during the war are eligible to be considered for increases in pension similar to those provided for various other classes of State pensioners under the Pensions (Increase) Acts of 1944 and 1947.

British Ex-Prisoners of War (Resettlement)

Mr. Alport: asked the Minister of Defence whether he has considered the provisions of the Public Law 896 of the United States Congress; and whether he will take steps to institute similar action to compensate ex-prisoners of war who suffered inhuman treatment, in contravention of the Geneva Convention, particularly at the hands of the Japanese.

Mr. Shinwell: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan).

Oral Answers to Questions — BUTTER AND BACON (PRICE INCREASES)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

57. MR. HURD—To ask the Minister of Food if he is now able to state how the retail prices of food will be affected by removal of the feedingstuffs subsidy and the higher prices to be paid to farmers for milk and meat.

60. MR. TURTON—To ask the Minister of Food whether he is now able announce the alterations in the prices of food that he proposes to make consequent upon the decision made in the February price review.

63. MR. IVOR OWEN THOMAS—To ask the Minister of Food if he will now state his arrangements for the retail prices of food arising from the recent farm price review and his general estimates of buying costs.

72. MR. CHETWYND—To ask the Minister of Food what changes in the price of food he proposes as a result of the recent review; and what will be their effect on the cost-of-living index.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I propose to make a statement in answer to these Questions.
The Government have now reviewed the position arising from the increase in the prices of certain agricultural products which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture announced on 23rd March. In considering the effect of these changes on retail food prices, the Government have also taken account of the


changes in various subsidies announced in recent months, and my Department's estimates of changes in the volume and prices of essential foodstuffs that we shall be buying from outside sources during the next few months. In the light of these many factors it is, of course, necessary for us to make price adjustments from time to time if we are to keep within the ceiling of food subsidies.
I have accordingly decided to make the following increases in price to meet all these outstanding points, and I hope I shall not have to make any further increases at any rate for some time. Butter will be increased by 4d. a 1b. bringing the price to 1s. 10d. a 1b. compared to the economic price of 2s. 10d. a 1b. That is the subsidy will still amount to 1s. a 1b.
Bacon will be increased by 2d. a 1b. on the average, but not uniformly over the whole range of qualities. This will give an average price of 2s. 5d. a 1b. for bacon compared to the economic price of 3s. 7d. a 1b. That is to say the subsidy will still be 1s. 2d. a 1b. for bacon. These increases, which are the only increases we propose, will take effect in the case of butter from 23rd April, and in the case of bacon from 21st May. I think I can best make clear the effect of these changes on the individual consumer by pointing out that the cost per ration book will be about 1½d. a week, and that it will involve an increase in the cost-of-living index of just over half a point.

Mr. Hurd: Can the Minister say how much of the £36 million saved to the taxpayers by abolishing the foodstuffs subsidies is being carried by farmers, and how much is now to be passed on to consumers in one way or another?

Mr. Webb: I am not sure about the exact amount carried by the farmers, but under this arrangement we are proposing to give, in recoupment of higher prices to farmers, about £12 million in a full year.

Mr. Turton: Can the Minister say whether the fixed ceiling on food subsidies will remain the same as last year?

Mr. Webb: I think that the hon. Member had better await the Chancellor's Budget statement.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Would my right hon. Friend try to arrange for the placing of tickets on all bacon on sale in shops, because most housewives feel that they are being charged maximum prices all the time for what they probably ought to have to pay minimum prices?

Mr. Webb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are looking into a suggestion that in the case of subsidised foods we should make clear to the consumer how much the subsidy amounts to, and we are trying to work out that proposal.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: My right hon. Friend said in his statement that the facts he gave were related to the ceiling figure which has been decided in relation to subsidies. Can he say what that ceiling figure is, in view of the fact that he seemed to imply that the arrangements which he has just announced have been fixed in relation to such a ceiling?

Mr. Webb: I am not responsible for the subsidy ceiling, and I would rather leave that point for the Chancellor to answer.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Minister say whether in relation to the increases in prices which he has announced there will be a proportionate decrease in the food subsidies?

Mr. Webb: That is part of the question I have just answered.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the Minister say what will be the total increase to purchasers as a result of these price increases? What will be the global increase?

Mr. Webb: It amounts to 1½d. per ration book, or, in the case of a family of four, 6d. per week.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPLOSION, STEVENSTON

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: As it affects my constituency, I desire, by Private Notice, to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any information regarding the explosion last night at the Ardeer Works, Stevenston, Ayrshire, belonging to Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited.

The Secretary of State For the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I regret to have to tell the House that an explosion


occurred in a cartridging house at Ardeer yesterday, resulting in the death of the four girls who were in the building. I have instructed one of His Majesty's inspectors of explosives to investigate the cause of the accident. The inquiry will open tomorrow. The House will join with me in expressing sympathy with the bereaved relatives.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Lord President of the Council whether he has any statement to make on the Business of the House?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Business for the first week after the Easter Recess will be as follows:
TUESDAY, 18TH APRIL.—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget.
WEDNESDAY, 19TH APRIL, THURSDAY, 20TH APRIL, and FRIDAY, 21ST APRIL.—General Debate on the Budget resolutions and the Economic Survey.
It may be convenient for me to state that the general Debate will be brought to a conclusion on Monday, 24th April.
During the week we shall ask the House to consider the several Motions relating to double taxation which are already on the Paper.

Mr. Churchill: Am I right in supposing that the original proposal of the Government was to use Friday, 21st April, for legislation, but that as the result of discussions through the usual channels they have decided to add Friday to the Budget Debate so as to allow a continuous Debate to proceed up to the evening of Monday, 24th April?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, that is so. Representations were made to us by the Opposition to that effect. We thought that their representations were well-founded and it has been agreed accordingly.

Sir Ian Fraser: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects the Debate to take place on the statement made by the Minister of National Insurance regarding the increases in Public Assistance grants; and if, when that Debate takes place, it could be arranged on a wide enough basis to enable the

effect of the cost of living upon other sections of the community to be debated at the same time?

Mr. Morrison: The Debate arises from the fact that it is necessary, and rightly so, for my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance to move a Motion approving the new regulations, and the House will then have an opportunity to express its views. I doubt whether that will enable us to range over the wide field of other payments of this kind, but that can no doubt be considered.

NORTH ATLANTIC DEFENCE COMMITTEE

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement to the House on the third meeting of the North Atlantic Defence Committee, which took place at the Hague on 1st April and which I attended as the representative of His Majesty's Government.
The primary purpose of the meeting was to receive from the Military Committee and the Military Production and Supply Board reports on the progress made with planning for the common defence of the North Atlantic area. This work includes the consideration of many problems both in the field of strategy and in those of finance and supply. The Defence Committee had before them plans worked out by the Standing Group and the Military Committee with the help of the regional planning groups.
These plans were drawn up in accordance with the general conception approved by the Defence Committee in Paris in December last; and at The Hague all the Defence Ministers gave to these plans their unanimous approval. The various bodies established under the North Atlantic Treaty—the Military Committee and its Standing Group, the Military Production and Supply Board and the Permanent Working Staff of the Defence Financial and Economic Committee, as well as the regional planning groups—will now set to work to make further progress in the examination of how these plans can be implemented and of the availability of manpower, equipment and finance for putting them into operation.
Since the Defence Committee first met in Washington six months ago, substantial progress has been made. I was much impressed by the resolution of all parties represented at the Conference to press on as rapidly as possible so that all the countries concerned may secure the full benefits which we expect to derive from the close association established under the North Atlantic Treaty, and which is undoubtedly of a character unprecedented in time of peace.
As hon. Members will appreciate there are many difficulties, including questions of finance and supply, still to be dealt with before the idea embodied in the North Atlantic Treaty can be fully realised. It certainly appeared to me that the Defence Ministers fully recognise this, and that the approach made by my colleagues in the Defence Committee is a realistic one. We have no illusions about the task which lies before us, or about the efforts which will be required to give effective force and content to the strategic plans to which we have, in principle, assented. Moreover, we recognise that, in accordance with the several procedures in our different countries, it will be important to give, from time to time, the fullest possible information about the state of the work and the progress being made.
I shall, of course, endeavour to keep the House informed, but hon. Members will recognise that, in the common interest, the countries concerned are bound to observe a high standard of security. I returned from The Hague much encouraged and stimulated by the personal contacts I was able to make with my Defence colleagues, many of whose problems have a marked resemblance to those of the United Kingdom, and I look forward to future meetings with them as opportunity offers and circumstances require.

Mr. Churchill: Is it not lamentable with all this well-turned official verbiage, and with all these meetings of great consequence between the most important people of different parts of the world, that so little real progress should have been made in making a front and a defence in the much more than 12 months which have elapsed since the Atlantic Tact was signed?

Mr. Shinwell: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit that in so short a time—he mentioned 12 months—real progress has been made. All the organisation had to be set up to begin with; and that has been achieved. It is not easy to set up an organisation of this kind, which comprises 12 countries, some of them very powerful and some not so powerful and with many varied interests. But that has been achieved. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate—as no one knows more about this than he, because he had the rather bitter experience of what transpired at the beginning of the last war—that it is not easy to build up equipment and manpower, even on the basis of well considered and well thought out plans. Plans have been well considered and well thought out, and we are making substantial progress.
I quite agree that if I say substantial progress is being made it sounds like a platitude. But I hope to dispose of platitudes as soon as it is possible to give to this House and to the country, and to all the countries concerned, fuller information.

Mr. Rhys Davies: In view of the very important statement made by my right hon. Friend, which sounds very much like preparations for another war, is it possible for us to have a Debate on this very serious declaration? Will it be possible to raise this issue when we are discussing the Budget?

Mr. Shinwell: The question of a Debate would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I can assure my hon. Friend, and other hon. Members, that the last thought we have is about preparation for war. What we are concerned with is defence and, quite properly, defence in view of the dangers which now present themselves to this very troubled world. We are concerned with the preparation of an adequate deterrent to a potential aggressor.

Brigadier Head: In the light of this conference and of our present Defence commitments, is the Minister satisfied that our present Defence policy is the one best calculated to enable us to carry out this task? Might it not be wise now to have a review of the whole of our present Defence policy, especially with regard to manpower?

Mr. Shinwell: I am satisfied that our Defence policy is the correct one. If I am asked a question whether that Defence policy can be immediately implemented I would direct attention to the many difficulties that present themselves; difficulties of manpower, of the creation of the necessary formations, agreement with other countries, the question of productive capacity, priorities and the like. While the policy is sound, and the plans are prepared they have to be carried through, and that requires very careful consideration.

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, as a result of these concerted plans at The Hague, he envisages any substantial alteration in the commitments of Great Britain, either in the shape of increased manpower or official commitments?

Mr. Shinwell: That, obviously, does not arise at this stage, but if we enter into an agreement with other countries we, like those countries, must make our contribution, which will be an adequate one to the common cause.

Mr. Macdonald: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he intends to provide time after the Recess to Debate a Motion on the Order Paper in my name and that—

Mr. Speaker: We passed on from Business a long time ago.

Mr. H. Hynd: Can the Minister of Defence say anything about the decision alleged to have been reached at The Hague affecting the position of the Secretary of State for War?

Mr. Shinwell: All I can say to the House is that, in spite of Press appearances to the contrary, there was no discussions about the position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. I know of no discussions, and if any suggestion had been made to me, either officially or unofficially, against the integrity and loyalty of my right hon. Friend I would have repudiated it at once.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Chairman of the Western Union Defence Committee was present at the discussions?

Mr. Shinwell: The meeting at the Hague was in connection with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and was not concerned primarily with the Western Union Defence Organisation. Therefore, there was no reason why the Chairman of the Western Union Commanders-in-Chiefs Committee should be present.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Will my right. hon. Friend tell us whether he has seen Press references and American reports, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd), about the Secretary of State for War; and, further, will he use his influence in this arrangement to reduce the cost of Defence expenditure to relieve countries, at any rate in this part of the world?

Mr. Shinwell: The Estimates for 1950–51 have been before the House, and have been accepted, and there I must leave it. As regards the other matter, I have already given a quite adequate reply.

Mr. Profumo: In view of the official statement issued after this conference that the United States were to be charged with strategic bombing responsibilities, may I ask whether this country is no longer to attempt to build strategic bombing aeroplanes?

Mr. Shinwell: That does not arise out of the statement I have made, but I arm afraid the hon. Member is assuming too much.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is there any truth in the statement in the Sunday Press that the United States Government is recommending us to spend less on the Navy?

Mr. Shinwell: I have no knowledge of that statement.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: The right hon. Gentleman said that our commitments had not been settled. Surely, he will agree that it is about time some of our commitments under this scheme were settled.

Mr. Shinwell: We have entered into commitments respecting certain plans and the like, but surely the hon. Member would not wish us to enter into every commitment that is likely to arise and; which is now envisaged.

Mr. Harold Davies: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that most of us in this House would like to emphasise the principle of fair shares, with each one of the 12 countries bearing an equal ratio of their national income towards this Defence scheme?

Mr. Shinwell: We are, naturally, working towards that end, but, of course, there are difficulties.

BILL PRESENTED

COAL MINING (SUBSIDENCE) BILL

"to provide for the carrying out of repairs and the making of payments in respect of damage affecting certain dwelling-houses and caused by subsidence resulting from the working and getting of coal and other minerals worked with coal, and for the execution of works to prevent or reduce such damage; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Noel-Baker; supported by Mr. Herbert Morrison, Mr. McNeil, Mr. Jay and Mr. Robens read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 12.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

House to meet Tomorrow at Eleven o'Clock; no Questions to be taken after Twelve o'Clock; and at Five o'Clock Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[The Prime Minister.]

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)

House, at its rising Tomorrow, to adjourn till Tuesday, 18th April.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1950–51

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Orders of the Day — JOINT CONSULTATION IN INDUSTRY

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Fernyhough: I beg to move, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
in the opinion of this House the fullest possible measure of voluntary co-operation between management and workpeople is essential if productivity is to be increased and good industrial relations maintained as the national interest requires, and this House urges the Government to continue its efforts through the national organisations of employers and workers to encourage the practice of joint consultation on matters of common interest to management and workpeople in the factory and workshop and the development of appropriate joint consultative machinery.
The subject which we are to discuss is one of great interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House, but it is of even greater interest to the millions of men and women in our workshops, factories and other places of employment. During the last hundred years, by trade union agitation and organisation, we have been able to build up a wages structure which has removed the worst features of our industrial system. Where trade union organisation has not been strong, this House, by trade boards and later by wages councils, has done as much as possible to bring the unenlightened employer into line.
Today, while we have reached the stage where the worker is protected against the avaricious employer, we are moving towards the time when workers in workshops and factories, and empoyees in general, are not satisfied merely to have their wages and conditions discussed. They feel that, in the light of developments in industry, with its greater centralisation, they are becoming mere


cogs in the wheel. They want some method of expressing their personalities, their feelings and ideas on matters which vitally affect them. Therefore, this Debate will go far beyond the mere question of wages and conditions. It is concerned with what I would term the functions and the part which the workers are to play in the new set-up in industry.
We must acknowledge that there is a tendency in modern industry for the gap between those who give the directions and those who put them into operation to become wider and wider. This fact, together with some types of work which employees are called upon to perform—the monotonous types such as tending machines without any chance of conversation or discussion—is apt to make the worker feel that he is losing his personality; that the machines are taking away from him his pride, his craftsmanship and a measure of satisfaction which he had hitherto.
I hope that many hon. Members opposite will agree with my hon. Friends on this side of the House that something must be done to make the worker feel that he is part and parcel of the establishment where he works and that his views on all matters will be taken into consideration. If this state of affairs is to be brought about, it will demand good and honest motives from both sides. On the workers' side, among the men and women in the factories and the trade union leaders, we shall be faced with the problem of trying to solve a system of representation which will give to everyone, whatever his job, a feeling that his point of view and ideas are being expressed and well represented in any consultation which may take place.
Hon. Members have often criticised the set-up in the nationalised industries. This House, when it was framing the legislation which led up to the nationalised industries, at least did a good and substantial job in the way in which it laid down the means of joint consultation. There cannot be any doubt that in the nationalised industries the machinery which has been introduced is not only proving satisfactory but is growing in usefulness every day. There is probably no constituency in any part of the country where that is better borne out than in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. That is particularly true

in the collieries. Most hon. Members from Durham would acknowledge that the Boldon colliery has a record of struggle, fighting, bitterness and animosity between the sides which probably is not excelled in any part of the coalmining industry.
Yet today under nationalisation, with mutual respect and trust between what I would term the management and the workers, and because of the facts which are placed before them when they are consulted on every issue, not only is there a happy atmosphere but, more important, that colliery has beaten its production target month after month. It is not merely a question of the atmosphere within the colliery itself. That atmosphere has spread through the village and, instead of their being bitterness and animosity between the various sections of the community as there was in the old days, there is now a much happier atmosphere and a real community spirit which is most desirable.
The Opposition can do much to develop this spirit which obtains in the collieries in my area. They can do much to foster it in private industry. It must be acknowledge that the total of the national economy which is represented by the socialised industries—perhaps hon. Members opposite would prefer to call them the nationalised industries, although we do not lose any votes in my constituency by talking about nationalization—is 20 per cent., which means that the other 80 per cent. of our national economy is in the hands of private employers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame."] I share the view point of my hon. Friend. This is where hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite can come in. They themselves, during the General Election, issued this stirring document, "This is the Road," which I summed up during the Election in this way: "Everybody is going to get more, and everybody is going to pay less." I told my constituents that, while that might be good mathematics in Harrow, it was bad arithmetic in Jarrow. We are not discussing the whole of this, and I merely want to refer to that section which is headed "The Workers' Charter," and which advocates
the widest possible extension, on a voluntary basis, of joint consultation on subjects other than wages and conditions of work, which are already covered by collective bargaining, and


will favour schemes of co-partnership and profit-sharing. The main body of the Charter will not be embodied in legislation, but will be drawn up as a Code of Conduct and submitted to Parliament for debate and adoption. We shall ensure that this Code is strictly applied in all undertakings under Government control. After due notice has been given, only those employers who observe the Code will obtain public contracts.
Then, of course, our hon. Friends opposite who sit below the Gangway, the Members of the Liberal Party, issued "No Easy Way." [An HON. MEMBER: "Where are they?"] Well, there is one representative of the party here. That document said:
Liberal Government would set itself to reconcile the interests of workers and employers, whether in State or private trading. Since the Whitley Committee was set up during the first world war, Liberals have striven for joint consultation at all levels of production.
I believe it was the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), who, during his broadcast speech, said that the Conservative Party did not believe in nationalising industry, but in humanising it. If ever there was anything which was a reflection upon the Leader of the Opposition, his party and his friends, it was their declaration that industry needed humanising. Up to 1945, in the main, industry belonged to those who were either Liberals or Conservatives; it was, therefore, their own industry upon which they were casting a reflection. After 100 years of trade union agitation and the struggles of the workers for the right to have a bigger say in the running of industry, it was surely a reflection upon themselves to have to say in 1950 that industry needed humanising.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that this is entirely the subject-matter of his own Amendment, and that he has already himself started on that argument?

Mr. Fernyhough: I am lost with what the noble Lord has said; it does not strike a chord at all.
The point at issue surely is that hon. Gentlemen opposite can do a lot—some of them have done something, but they could do much more—to see that the spirit which is indicated in this Amendment becomes really effective and

operative throughout industry. Most employers, or, at least, a good number of them, are doing what they can in this respect. They are approaching the problem in a fair, human and sensible manner, but there are still too many who not only refuse to take the workers into consultation at all, but who are still living in the 19th century, and, even in 1950, are bitterly opposed to trade unionism.
It is amazing that, in the year 1950, there should be the necessity for workers to strike in order to obtain trade union recognition. That happens not only in large units but more so in the case of some of the smaller employers. Because the party opposite really does stand for joint consultation and is publicly committed to the principle, I say that, apart from whatever this House might do, they have the moral responsibility to see that their own friends in industry act in accordance with their party's public professions. If they do that, they will do much to remove some of the bitterness, mistrust and suspicion which has bedevilled the two sides in British industry.
I do not think that, in a discussion of this kind, we should do other than mention the great record of the present Foreign Secretary in this matter during the years of the war. There is no doubt that he gave it a very great fillip, and I am anxious to find out from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour today how far we have slipped back since the end of the war, how far there has been a hardening on the part of any employers, what are the chances of development in this respect in the reasonably near future, and what the Minister himself is doing to bring what I would term the recalcitrant employers into line with the best on this matter. We say very definitely that there should be no unlimited power in any sphere, that there should be no harsh or dictatorial attitude, but that the approach generally should be one of recognition that men and women are human beings, that they have hearts that beat and blood that flows through their veins, and should be treated as personalities and individuals rather than as so many industrial units.

Mr. Summers: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the trade unions, may I ask him whether he supports the policy of the Co-operative


movement, which inserts conditions into its orders that goods shall be delivered by trade union drivers?

Mr. Fernyhough: I certainly do endorse it, and I think that in view of the pleadings and panderings of the Opposition to the trade union vote during the General Election, we should now expect them to encourage trade unionism. During the General Election, they claimed that it was they who first brought unions into being, that it was they who built them up, and it would be a tragedy if, having created during the General Election that impression of a marvellous concern for the industrial worker, they should now in any way besmirch that impression by pretending that they are not too friendly towards the idea of the workers being organised in trade unions. As I have already indicated, many employers are co-operating and are doing their best.
It is the black spots with which we want to deal; with the employer who still looks upon his worker as a hewer of wood and a drawer of water—and, unfortunately, there are still a few of them—the employer who looks upon his worker in the light of, "His not to reason why, his but to work and die." It is that old-fashioned, 19th-century attitude towards the worker which we want to see removed. We say that where it has been removed, where the employer is enlightened and has taken his workers into consideration, and where joint consultation is really active and effective, the employers themselves acknowledge that the wealth of experience and the great knowledge of the workers has added considerably to the efficient running of the particular industrial unit.
We must all recognise that today it is just as important to get maximum production as it was during the war. Then the enemy we were fighting was the military foe. It was an external enemy, but nevertheless, industry was keyed up, and joint consultation was readily acknowledged because of that external enemy. Today, to a large extent, we are fighting an internal enemy—the fear of poverty. The battle today is the battle for production, and anything which can contribute towards industrial efficiency and can increase our productivity is something which ought to be welcomed by both sides of the House.
I think we would all readily acknowledge that industry is a common enterprise. There are the two sides to it, and the more we can move along the line of letting the workers take their proper and fair share in its conduct, the less bitterness, animosity, suspicion, and friction there will be. Over the years, this country has brought about the most advanced political democracy the world has ever seen. Our job now is to bring what I would term "industrial democracy" up to the level of political democracy. Every citizen, irrespective of race, colour, class or creed is given an equal opportunity, as it were, in determining the Government of the country.
What we want to see is that every man and woman employed throughout the length and breadth of industry is, as far as possible, made to feel that his or her voice is heard. A worker wants to feel that he has some responsibility for the concern in which he is working and some attachment to it. If we can develop that idea and make the workers feel that they are part of the concern, then there cannot be any question as to what the responsibility will be.
I think this is vitally necessary in order that the men and women who, more and more, in the situation to which technical advance will take us, will do those humdrum unsatisfying and uncongenial jobs, should be able to give expression through a joint industrial council to their thoughts and ideas. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to tell us what progress has been made, and what is going to be done in the future. I also hope that by whatever methods he tries to bring about a greater measure of joint consultation in industry, we shall have in this matter the wholehearted backing and support of hon. Members opposite.

4.15 p.m.

Major Vernon: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am very glad of this opportunity, and wish, first of all, to say how thoroughly I agree with the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). If I do not place so much emphasis on the satisfactory features, but rather point to directions in which improvements and further work can be carried out, it must not be thought that I do not appreciate the great advances


that have been made. Indeed, I have a clear picture in my mind of the immense advantages ahead of us, of the great harvest which can be reaped if the knowledge which has been achieved so far, and the things which we shall learn as experience matures in the next few months or years, are properly and carefully applied.
It is because I have seen in certain firms and businesses the remarkable progress which has been made that I take this attitude. It seems to me that we are repeatedly asked to make great efforts to increase production, and that the idea is that if we put in twice as much effort, we get twice as much production. In the case of joint production it is not quite like that; it is more like putting a little oil into a rusty and stiff machine. A small amount of effort, a little skilful organisation, and a comparatively small improvement in the relation between workers and management can sometimes produce immense results.
My first suggestion to the Minister is that the time has come for a review of the progress made so far. It is quite true that in certain undertakings and places—for instance, in the mines and many other undertakings—great improvements have been made. But there are backward areas. Some firms have set up joint production council committees, but, after a bit, they have dealt with only trivial and insignificant questions, and anything really important has, somehow, got side-tracked, and the whole thing has become stale and unproductive. The reasons for that can be discovered. They are different in every industry, and there is a different pattern of organisation here and there, but, as a general problem, the search for the obstructions in this direction is a thinking job which can only be done through the agency of the Minister himself.
One of the most important items is finance. Some firms keep their accounts rigidly secret, but the ones which have been successful are those which made a clean breast of their financial situation and gave the utmost information to their employees. The very best of all the concerns that I have come across in this direction is British European Airways. They have a system of accountancy, month by month, department by department, and charts and diagrams are displayed

accessible to all employees; each little group is given a picture of its own target for the month, its target for the year, and its place in the whole scheme of things.

Mr. Osborne: Do they share all the losses also?

Major Vernon: If the hon. Gentleman would like me to go into that in rather greater detail, I would point out that the losses are decreasing month by month. The reason for those losses are being found out; the special difficulties of any airways organisation resulting from the fluctuation of traffic between winter and summer are being dealt with quite scientifically, and that body is well on the way to being the most efficient airways organisation in the world. That is just by the way, and is one example of where the financial information has been particularly useful.
I shall give two other examples. One is that of a firm which had a certain surplus to be dealt with at the end of the war. They did not say to the workers, "You are to decide what can be done with this surplus." They said, "We will take into account your wishes in this matter. You can either have slight increases in pay here and there or you can use it for sport and recreation, or you can suggest better canteens and amenities in the factory and better machinery which will lighten your labour and improve the efficiency of the enterprise as a whole." The workers talked about that, and the arguments blew up hot and furious and went on and on. It did a vast amount of good to bring these questions out into the limelight. In the end they decided to divide the surplus between new machinery and amenities in the factory. The management were able to accept that recommendation.
The other example relates to piecework. Ever since I was an apprentice in an engineering firm piece-work has been a source of trouble. I do not believe there is a satisfactory system in the world. The men always think they are being done down, and the management always think the men are holding back with the idea of getting a higher price. In this instance the management said to one department, "Will you try to work out a satisfactory system of piece-rates among yourselves?" They argued


this for six months with the idea of trying to secure some system which would satisfy the highly skilled, the semi-skilled and the unskilled. In the end they came back and said, "We give it up. We do not want a piece-work system. We guarantee to maintain our output if you guarantee to continue the same rate of payment to the whole department." That was just being put into force when I visited the firm. It does a vast amount of good when people know that their wishes are being considered, and they know how extremely difficult it is to devise a piece-work system that can really satisfy everybody.
Looking at the matter broadly, we should apply our minds to the question of how far joint consultation is going to be applied. There are a certain number of links to the high command in every organisation, according to its size. In the military organisation it runs right through from the private soldier upwards. In a small firm there may be only three links. In a large organisation like the Post Office, there may be seven or eight from the supreme command to the lowest workers. We should make up our minds whether we want joint consultation through the whole of the scale. Right at the top in industry there is joint consultation between two or three grades. At the bottom we have consultation at the workmen's level. There is a sort of gap in the middle. Just as in the Army the soldier has a right of appeal, step by step, to the Army Council, so in industry there should be a continuous sequence of consultation right through on all these levels.
I am particularly interested in the technical and scientific grades of workers. The members of my trade union, the Association of Scientific Workers, do not occur in large numbers in the same place. One may have a factory with 1,000 workers but with only three or four scientists. Great notice is taken of the trade unionists because they are so numerous. The same applies to the management because they are so powerful, but, because our members are so few they are inclined to be overlooked. They ought not to be overlooked. In joint consultations the management are a bit shy of the scientific workers because they think they know too much. The workers are shy of them because they have a different background. The workers are

liable to associate them with the financial management, which is entirely erroneous.
Another problem is that of promotion. I asked a firm with whom I was acquainted, what had done most to improve feeling between workers and management. A considerable improvement had been taking place over the past few years. They said they thought it was because of the participation of the workers in the mechanism of promotion. When, as an apprentice, I went to the workshop for the first time, I was asked who had introduced me. The custom was for apprentices to need introduction from an important customer, or from someone high up in the firm. When I asked why they wanted to know who had introduced me, they said, "It is not what you know that matters in this concern, it is whom you know." That kind of promotion by favouritism has been quite normal in the private sector of industry, though it is also found in the public sector.
The most successful managements have been those who have been wise enough to explain the mechanism of promotion to their workers and wise enough to give the workers a say in promotion matters. It is not those above a person who always know his value. Those under him are often in a far better position to judge his worth. It is not easy to apply that knowledge to the scheme of things, but it is something that ought to be borne in mind and considered. These are the principal suggestions I would make and I conclude, as I started, with a word of admiration for the speech of the proposer of this Amendment and by commending the whole subject to the Minister for his most favourable consideration.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. McCorquodale: I think we on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, would give a very warm welcome to the Amendment that you have just read out. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) upon having chosen this interesting and important subject when he had the luck of the ballot recently. The wording of the Amendment is so much in line with what we believe, at any rate on this side of the House, that some hon. Members suggested to me that the hon. Gentleman went along to Conservative head office to get it worded properly. In a moment I shall


show how much he follows what we in the Conservative Party have been endeavouring to do in educating the country in this matter over the last three years. I should like to welcome, particularly, his very proper use of the word "voluntary," because that is the key to the whole of this position. If I am not being provocative—because I know the Minister feels the same way as the hon. Gentleman does about this—may I suggest the Minister should emphasise to his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, when he considers such things as working parties in industry, that they too would work better if they were voluntary. If he does that, he will do a very good service.
It is nearly three years ago since the party to which I belong produced the political pamphlet entitled "An Industrial Charter." This had a very wide and largely appreciative reception. Indeed, many political observers reckoned that it was this pamphlet which played a large part in the great revival of the Conservative Party, which has been brought to such a pitch that we now see the changed distribution of parties in the House. I myself feel that that is partly true, because I was privileged to fight a by-election at just about that time and I made full use of the "Industrial Charter"; certainly the results of the election were very favourable from my point of view.
The "Industrial Charter" was adopted by the party almost unanimously, and it is the blue print of our Conservative approach to the problems inherent in modern large scale industry. We Conservatives stand fully by that policy and, as the hon. Gentleman himself said, we have reaffirmed it in more recent publications and notably in our admirable election address. The hon. Member adopted a neat way of slurring over the facts which make so much appeal to the country in this Conservative document, but if he wants a true appreciation of it I would recommend him to read an article in the "Manchester Guardian" which is certainly not a paper connected with us but which has a wide following in the North and which praised this publication as being by far the most realistic and the best of all the party publications issued in the election.
I should like to quote one or two short passages from the "Industrial Charter" in support of what the hon. Gentleman has said. On page 28 we say that our policy is to humanise, not nationalise; and that is true. We hope that continual progress will be made. Indeed, the point that the hon. Gentleman made has some substance in it—we also want to improve upon what went on in the old days—but it must be remembered that in the old days most of the shops were small and there was much closer contact between the managers, the shop workers and the bosses. Now we have this large-scale organisation, and a much more formal method of joint consultation is necessary.
We say in our "Industrial Charter":
We believe that industry should provide three general rights to those engaged in it:—security of employment, incentive to do the job well and to get a better one, and status as an individual however big the firm or however mechanised the job may be. These we regard as the essentials of a Workers' Charter.
The authors went on to write considerably more about joint consultation. In fact, they gave a whole page of this pamphlet to working out joint consultation and its advantages. I should like to read the last few words on that subject:
It is a truism that joint consultation will only work if there is the will to make it work. That may be said of any form of co-operation. We see no inherent reason why that will should not be universal. No good employer or satisfactory employee has anything to lose, and both have much to gain, by getting round a table and talking their problems out in a frank and friendly spirit. We recognise that joint consultation must be a plant of free and orderly growth, like so many institutions in this country. But we feel certain that, given time, if this new structure be well built it will produce excellent results.
I admire the colour in which the Trades Union Congress printed the Report of their Conference at Bridlington in 1949. It is very encouraging that they should choose even a little washed-out blue rather than the red which one might expect. There is a short paragraph in the Report to which I should like to refer. I am sorry they did not expand it a little more, but it is all right as far as it goes. They say that they have been pressing for joint consultation and the


Minister of Labour has been endeavouring to stimulate it. They then say:
No spectacular results have been received, but there has been a steady development.
The hon. Gentleman cited the collieries in his constituency as an example of what can be done when joint consultation is working well, and I was very glad to hear it. On page 217 of the Report under the heading "Coal, consultative machinery," one reads that the National Union of Mineworkers in an interim report expressed some anxiety as to the working of joint consultative machinery in the coal industry generally. They went on to say:
It is good in some places but very bad in others, and there is a growing sense of frustration and cynicism which is causing deterioration in relations in parts of the coal industry.
I am glad to know that, in Durham at any rate, it is good. Let us hope that the rest of the coal industry will follow Durham.
I make that point not to criticise the coal industry but to emphasise that in this matter of joint consultation the same problems arise in the nationalised industries as in the private enterprise industries. Certainly this shows that things are not perfect in the nationalised industries, any more than anybody would claim that things are at present perfect in any other form of industry. I would say in passing that I admired the courage of the hon. Gentleman in using the word "nationalised," in view of what the Lord President of the Council said this afternoon. Up in the North, as I know, they prefer to call things by their right names.
I should like to consider for a moment some of the reasons for laying emphasis on good industrial relations especially at this time, which can be encouraged by joint consultation. Good relations in industry are desirable at any time. I believe that at present they are, if possible, even more desirable. The hon. Gentleman himself said that high production is as necessary now as it was during the war, and that is true.
There are other reasons, too. We now have in this country an active, organised, ruthless group of people stimulated by help and encouragement from outside this country, who are pledged to disrupt our industrial production and cause all the trouble they can in industrial matters

generally wherever they can operate. Of course, I refer to Communist infiltration. Communists have been able in the past to get into positions where they can exert in industry an influence out of all proportion to their actual numbers. I think that we all in this House will be pleased to note that a considerable number of trade unions are taking active steps to exclude from high positions in their unions those who are engaged in Communist activities.
But, in my opinion, nothing will counter the subversive doctrines of these Communist agents and the harm that they can do in this country, more successfully than by enabling the ordinary man and woman working in the factory to feel that they are regarded as human beings and as partners in the industry in which they are engaged. Therefore, all the improvements we can make in joint consultative arrangements will be valuable from that point of view as well. We must make the workers realise that even in these vast public monopolies—I use the words of the Lord President himself—owned by the State at the present time, the worker is not a cog in a vast Socialist machine, as so often appears at the present time.
Another point of interest and, I think, of importance is this. There should be a growing realisation in the country of the importance of joint consultation committees and consultative work generally. This country is improving in its education, and it is only natural that young people will want some machinery by which their opinions, their advice and feelings about the work of the shop in which they are operating can be made known to those in authority.
At the same time as we are improving education in this country, as a result of the great Act brought forward during the war by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) and of other methods, the breaking down of the old crafts and the development of mass production and large-scale industry are, all the time, tending to force the worker down into being a cog in a vast machine. As jobs become more and more repetitive, so the old skills of the craftsmen tend to disappear. I say, therefore, that in large-scale industry today this modern approach is needed more and more.
What is the basic objective of good management? This is a truism—and, indeed, when one discusses this subject one must introduce a good many platitudes, although many of them are none the less true: the basic objective of all good management and all good managers is the establishment of good relations in the shops. However technically skilled he may be, however many diplomas he may have received and however many courses of instruction he may have undergone, no man will make a good manager at any level in industry unless he is able to get on with and to get the best out of the men and women under his control. That is a platitude, but it is true.
In passing, I would remind the House that it is not always recognised. I well remember that when the vast ordnance factories were being built up and increased at the beginning of the war, skilled scientists, skilled chemists and others with all the degrees in the world and all the goodwill in the world, but with no experience and with little knowledge of man management, found themselves thrust into charge of these vast organisations. The results were what we might have expected. In passing, too, I might say that the average pittance which scientists are usually paid was attached in those cases to those jobs. I hope that position will never be reached again, but I trust that if we ever had to expand industry suddenly we should see that every step was taken to ensure that those placed in charge had an adequate reputation and experience in the art of man management.
A lot of cranky talk takes place about management and labour and a lot of people spin out great theories about it. Possibly we are apt to do so in this House. I am glad to see that the Minister agrees with me. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will watch very carefully over the people in his own charge at the Ministry of Labour. I was told only last week of a call made on one of the most eminent and successful managers of a factory, who has been in his post for 25 years and has done admirable work. He had to submit to quite a lecture from a young lady from the Ministry of Labour on the art of personnel management. That is all right, but I am not quite sure that her "talk" was really necessary.
I do not propose to go into the history of the development of joint consultative arrangements and I do not think the House would wish me to do so, but I think I should say that the Whitley Report of 1917 might claim to be the father of all modern thought on this subject. The great step which came out of their Report was, of course, the establishment of joint industrial councils. I should like to pay my tribute to the Minister of Labour for his work in the trade with which he and I have been associated all our lives. He played a great part personally in the establishment of a joint council in the printing trade, a council on which both of us have sat. During fair weather and foul it has done quite admirable work for all engaged in the industry.
I believe that the Whitley Councils in the Civil Service were also set up as a result of the Whitley Report, and here there is one question I should like to ask the Minister on a subject which causes me some distress. Having been at the Ministry of Labour in the past I sometimes look at the papers concerned with the Ministry. There is a paper called the "Civil Service Argus," the organ of the Ministry of Labour Staff Association, edited by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, a Member of another place. In the March issue this year this paper in its editorial—and I assume, therefore, under his authority or under his pen—issues a most violent attack upon the operation of the Ministry of Labour Whitley Council. On the outside of the pamphlet it says:
Ministry of Labour Whitley at the Crossroads.
When I was at the Ministry of Labour the utmost care was taken to make this joint industrial committee as perfect as possible. After all, it is the fountain head from which all our inspirations on this sort of thing should spring and it is important that it should be made as perfect as possible. The suggestion that the Whitley machinery at the Ministry of Labour itself is not functioning at all is almost like accusing the Archbishop of Canterbury of heresy. I wonder whether the Minister would like to say something about this.
From what I know of the Ministry I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord is all wrong in his strictures, but, of course, this is serious. In his article he says:


Recent developments would have shaken the confidence of even a happy staff … The staff of the Ministry of Labour asks not for cake and ha'penny but a square deal. If that cannot be obtained by Whitley Council methods then withdrawal … is the only alternative.
Surely that would be a most retrograde step. I am a little alarmed about the paper and I hope the noble Lord has not written the article out of spleen, not knowing the facts.
I should like to welcome, in a word, the initiative shown in sending these working groups to America to study work there. I do not know whether it sprang from the Ministry or from the joint consultative committees of industry. It is an admirable extension of joint consultation. The groups are drawn from both management and labour circles. One group from my own trade has just returned from America and the delegate who went from the firm to which I belong told me all about it yesterday and expressed his great satisfaction in the experience he had had. He gave a most heartening account of the way in which that great country welcomed our people. Indeed, when we go to America we all find the warmest of warm welcomes. It is remarkable how willing they are to show everything they have. Over here we are sometimes rather secretive in our processes and in the way we run our factories, but in America the reverse is true and they are always only too willing to show everything they have.
I was also glad to note that in this delegate's report, and I believe his colleagues concurred in this point, he says that while they picked up many good ideas and learned much, they have come back feeling that at any rate in our trade and in the ordinary printing shop in the country we certainly do not compare unfavourably, either in workshop practice or in the quality of our product, with that turned out in America. I think that is a very useful and heartening message for him to bring back.
I assume that all hon. Members advocate, wherever possible, the setting up of joint consultative machinery in the factory or workshop. I assume that because of the cheers from his supporters which greeted the hon. Member opposite and, on our side, because of the doctrine I have outlined. Apart from the general industrial council for the whole trade hon.

Members advocate that there should be joint consultative machinery in the individual factory.
I should like to mention one or two things which we must guard against if we are to make this system a real help to the industrial world. First of all, joint consultative committees must not in any way usurp the functions of trade unions. Secondly, they must not usurp the functions of executive management. Thirdly, they must not be regarded as ends in themselves. I mean, they must not be regarded as a useful sort of ashcan into which to tip grievances and troubles in the hope that there they may be quite forgotten.
We on this side, as well as hon. Members opposite, as the hon. Gentleman said, attach the greatest importance to the operation of proper trade union activities in this country, and the establishment of joint machinery for negotiation between the trade unions and the employers' organisations of all questions of wages and conditions. That must not be interfered with by any house arrangement or house decision come to with the joint consultative committees. There is a danger of this sort which I know many trade union leaders feel. I think that if this were clearly understood a good deal of the hostility—not hostility, but apathy I ought to say—in some quarters would be removed.
Our belief and our wish at this time is that we must all do everything to buttress and nothing to weaken trade union responsibility in these difficult times. It is, incidentally, one of the reasons why I am such an opponent of nationalisation, because I believe it to be demonstrable that widespread nationalisation would, if persisted in in this country, kill voluntary trade unionism as we know it. I have spoken on this subject before in the House, and I hope at a later date to elaborate it again. I believe it can be proved demonstratively without possibility of contravention. However, let us pass away from that. These committees must be, therefore, consultative and advisory. They are not bargaining committees in any way. The bargaining must be done by properly constituted trade union and employers' organisations.
Secondly, the committees must not usurp the function of executive management. They can be of the greatest assistance


to managements in making suggestions as to the working of the factories, suggestions as to improving the efficiency of factories, suggestions with regard to increasing the happiness and contentment of the workers, and on matters regarding the welfare and social activities, among other things, of the workers. Thus they can be of the greatest assistance to managements. The responsibility, however, for running the factory is that of the management of the factory.
The management also can use them—and I believe this is an important function and that they should use them—as media for telling the people in the factory the utmost of what is going on in the factory; about the state of the order book, for instance, the state of the finances of the business—and in this I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon) who spoke last and who has just gone out—about such questions as the effects of Government regulations in this country, and of government quotas enforced from abroad, and about the export trade; and in the future, as closer integration in Europe takes place, there may be all sorts of very difficult questions which will need to be explained carefully to the people.
I believe that these committees can be used to explain these things and give this information; but they cannot successfully run a factory, and, therefore, must be regarded in this way as not executive. Sidney Webb put the position most clearly. He said:
The relationship set up between a foreman or manager, who has throughout the working day to give orders to his staff, and the members of that staff who, assembled in general meeting, criticise his action or give him directions with the power of dismissing him if he fails to conform to their desires, has always been found to be an impossible one.
That is true, and I believe that if that were properly understood many of the fears of rather old fashioned employers would disappear.

Mr. Mikardo: While I do not dissent from the general view the right hon. Gentleman is expressing, may I ask how he can reconcile this point with the fact that during the war the Ministry of Labour, at the time when, I believe, he was associated with it, gave

joint production committees certain restricted executive powers? Does it not follow that this is not as clear-cut as it looks?

Mr. McCorquodale: I am not entirely disputing what the hon. Gentleman said. There may be cases in which, with the full agreement of the trade unions and the employers—and in this case of the Government—certain specific jobs of a semi-executive nature could be given over to joint committees I remember that the question of absenteeism which probably the hon. Member has in mind was a particularly thorny question which very few people wished to handle. I am not sure it was not rather dumped on the production committees.

Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: Did not that originate really when the managements were out at golf?

Mr. McCorquodale: Well, I do not mind that remark very much, but this is a serious subject we are discussing. I said that in the third place the joint consultation should not be regarded as an end in itself. It is only one part of the whole job of man management in industry. There are many other aids to good relations in industry which I do not wish to refer to today—pensions and the like, which all conduce to better conditions in industry and, therefore, to better output.
I say from my personal experience in this matter in the industry and in the business with which I am connected, that the setting up of these committees is not altogether an easy task, especially in the smaller factories. We in the industry with which I am associated, being a highly trade-unionised one, have very close consultation almost every day between the fathers of the chapels and the managements, and it is felt in some of the factories, in the group with which I am connected, that that arrangement is so close that, really, more formal arrangements are not necessary. In our larger units we have been able to get going more formal monthly or bi-monthly meetings of the joint consultative committees, and where they have been started the managements, and those taking part on the employers' side, find good in them. No one wishes to see them stop; all hope rather than they will go on and extend their activities.
In conclusion, I would just say this. I should like to feel that it could go out from this House tonight, when we are discussing a matter which is not controversial in the party political sense—and none the worse for that, especially just before we break up for the Recess—that we believe that certainly in the larger establishments, and possibly in many of the smaller ones as well, both the managements' and the trade union leaders will find that the setting up of more formal consultative machinery is a most valuable and, indeed, an almost indispensable adjunct in the carrying on of the task of good labour management and high production in industry, if industry is to carry out that task. We in this House cannot do it. Even the Minister, with all the best will in the world, cannot do it.
On the other hand, we in this House can claim that we are constantly in touch, at any rate, with the widest aspects of this problem, wider possibly than those engaged in many industries, and I am sure that we shall be able to send a message that, in the very great difficulties which lie ahead, the more every one in industry at every level is given the facts and taken into consultation and made to feel more of a partner and less of a unit in the factory or workshop in which he works, the better it will be for industry and the better for the whole nation.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. John Cooper: In asking for the indulgence of the House for this my maiden speech, I am encouraged by the very generous treatment which I have noted has been meted out so far to other new Members when making theirs. I am further encouraged by the fact that the Debate is on a subject which I feel will create the minimum of controversy. However, if I may indulge in a pleasantry, I would observe that the party on this side of the House has been interested in joint consultation for 30 years, whereas apparently the party opposite has taken a belated interest in it in the last three years—an interest which, if I may say so, during the last election rather embarrassed me as a trade union officer of 20 years' experience.
It is true, as the right hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) said, that this subject is one on which there is a large amount of literature; and I think

all hon. Members will agree that the bibliography prepared by the research department, now lying in the Library, is one on which the department is to be commended, and which is of great value to Members. But after all that has been written, when I try to draw on the experience of 20 years' active trade union work I am impressed, first of all, by the immensity of the problem and the great variety of types to be found in the structure of British industry. It is, therefore, extremely difficult to particularise on this very important subject. I have tried to examine the problem objectively. Having left the very useful career of trade union official and entered this House for the first time, I am not only looking forward, but have perforce been obliged to look back a little.
I felt that the best approach I could make to the Debate would be to look at my experience in the trade union world objectively and see what useful contribution I could make. Fundamentally, the question of joint consultation is simply a matter of human relationships; it is to deal with the day-to-day problems at shop level. I should like here to put forward a wider aspect for consideration, and that is not only the desirability of good will prevailing in the workshop on both sides, but the much more fundamental thing, which from time to time will have to be examined, that the time the worker spends in the factory is still the greater part of his life. The effect of the factory on the individual from the point of view of the functioning of democracy is, in my opinion, a social factor which ought to be considered over and above the immediate industrial problem of good relations.
Joint consultation is a development of what was started after the First World War—the idea of "Whitleyism." Gradually that has grown, and during the last 30 years industry has changed considerably, so that we have reached a point where negotiations have been removed from the domestic sphere of the factory to the district or national level. Even in the past there are examples where joint negotiation took place very happily directly between the trade union officer on behalf of the men and the factory manager. Gradually the trade union officer has been pushed about by a natural development, and today he journeys up to London to do his business


rather than going just round the corner in the factory.
I think that is an inevitable development, but because of that we must encourage bringing home to the worker in the factory the significance of what is taking place somewhere outside, which will ultimately determine his wages and working conditions. There are three tiers at the moment: national, district, and the lower level. Frankly, I think that the lower level is fundamental and more important than the other two, for it is there that we have to bring home quite clearly to the worker his own position. The present tendency is natural, and is one which should be encouraged if possible.
I should now like to comment on what I feel are the fundamental conditions for the success of joint negotiations at factory level. The first essential is obvious, but it ought to be stated: it is the establishment of confidence on both sides. It is no use talking about doing this on a compulsory basis. Even it compulsion is tried we shall never get joint consultation until the two sides have confidence in each other to start off with. Secondly, and equally important, is the desire on both sides to make joint consultation a success. I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Epsom say, what is most important, that any joint consultation should be consistent with the collective agreements that have already been reached at national or district level. I would stress the great importance of having a complete chain from the local level to the national level, so that those who serve on joint consultative committees are answerable to the bodies to which they should owe some responsibility, because there cannot be three-tier government, as it were, and irresponsibility at the bottom. That is, I think, well understood.
Now let me comment briefly on what has happened in the past, when there have been both good and bad kinds of consultation. I hope it will not be considered invidious to other industries if I mention one in particular; because it is a small industry where it has worked extremely well, and I refer to it because I believe that if the Minister wants an example of good joint consultation he will find it in this industry—namely,

the match industry. In that industry they seem completely to understand the clear functioning of joint negotiation; they have their minutes, which are subsequently submitted to the Joint Industrial Council; and labour relations in that industry compare favourably with those in any other industry. There is no doubt that joint consultation can work, and I have the feeling that if a careful examination were made in industries where it has worked, we might discover ideas which would be useful in application elsewhere.
I would say to hon. Members opposite that there have been some very bad forms of consultation at factory level, and I advise them to be very chary in promoting too freely the idea of co-partnership, which is a form of consultation at factory level. I hope I shall be forgiven for saying this, but in the past, without a shadow of doubt, there have been attempts to create joint consultation at factory level for the purpose of preventing the workers being free to join trade unions. There is a danger in that, because an essential for good working is good understanding at top levels in industry, and if this idea of joint consultation is to be "sold" there must be good understanding at the top level and at the regional level. When that stage is reached—and most joint consultative bodies have now reached it after many years of "Whitleyism"�žit is time to foster the same good spirit downwards with a view to encouraging what everybody agrees is an excellent thing for industry.
I should also like to refer to the paragraph in the T.U.C. Report, 1949, and continue where the right hon. Member for Epsom left off. There it was pointed out that, apart from the socialised industries, national agreements had been reached in 30 industries for the establishment of joint production committees. Joint production committees are, of course, only one form of consultation at workshop level. I understand that the Ministry of Labour has appointed a special officer to encourage nationally the development of consultation where J.I.C.s have already adopted the principle of consultation.
May I make this final suggestion to the Minister, because I feel that it is vital, not only at national level but also at regional level, that he should see whether


it is possible to arrange for officers, who can specially devote their time to this work, to make approaches—and I would put in this restriction—to those industries which have already adopted the principle nationally that joint consultation should operate throughout the industries.

5.12 p.m.

Sir Peter Bennett: It is my very great pleasure to congratulate the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. J. Cooper) on his maiden speech. I am sure that I carry with me the thoughts of the whole House in congratulating him on having made such an excellent contribution and on having chosen a subject on which he can speak with such authority as he has done in the present Debate. I can assure him that if he sticks to that line and talks about what he knows so firmly, the House will always listen very attentively to what he has to say. That does not always happen to everything which hon. Members on both sides of the House have to say, when they talk about matters of which they are not sure. From personal experience, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this House is very keen to listen to a man who talks about what he knows and does so in no controversial or pre-judiced manner. It is, therefore, a pleasure for me to come into contact with another high-up member of a trade union. I come into contact with a lot of them, and the more I see of them the better we get on together, and the better it is for industry, which, after all, is one team and not two.
I should like to say how much I appreciate the manner in which the mover of this Amendment put his case, and the very sensible way in which he has worded it, so that we can all agree. The suggestion made to me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, was that if I were fortunate enough to catch your eye I should give a little information to the House about the way in which joint production committees can be established and run successfully when they have been established. I should like to do that, and, therefore, I ask the House to pardon me if, in developing that a little later on, it appears to be on a very personal note. I cannot tell the House what I have been doing and what my organisation has been doing without being personal.
It is a common error to discuss our problems and difficulties on the basis of existing conditions without full consideration of why they have arisen. We take advantage of the achievements of our forefathers without question, and then we concentrate on grumbling at what they have not done or at what they did badly. So it is with industrial matters. The present position in industry is the result of developments which, in many cases, were rapid and often unexpected. When we think of the development of British industry over the last few centuries, we realise that we were an agricultural country only a hundred years or so ago. We had our cottage industries, followed by the local industries where water power, fuel and materials were available�žall in a small way—and then there suddenly burst upon the world the Industrial Revolution, and a vast expansion took place.
Today, in many respects, we are paying the price of the pioneering which was done. On Thursday night my colleagues and I were engaged in trying to put to the Minister of Health the problem of housing in the industrial city of Birmingham. That is one of the things which we have inherited. I have been on a number of deputations abroad, and I have been shown some lovely works set out beautifully with fine roads and avenues of trees, but it is often forgotten that they are copies of what we have done after finding out the mistakes which we had made. We were the pioneers. Some of our factories are very haphazard and messy because they have been chopped and changed about during the development period. Before we regard all that our forefathers did as being bad, we should realise that we have benefited from the good things which they did, and now we have to put right some of the mistakes which they made and which we have inherited.
In industry, in the early days, we developed from small units where master and man were in daily contact and knew each other. Then came the larger factories with the big amalgamations and the joint stock companies, and the personal touch was lost. We have had advantages from that, and we have taken full advantage of them, but we have also had many disadvantages from the way in which industry has developed; but do not let us


suggest as writers sometimes do, that it would be a good thing if we could put the clock back and go back to that era. We never can. We could not maintain the population of these islands if we went back to cottage industries or anything like them. In losing that personal touch, misunderstandings arose, as was natural. The boss could not have it out with the man; he could not tell him what he thought about it on the spot and settle it. They went away and thought about it, and so we got that antagonism which has developed and corrupted our industrial life. According to the British habit we take sides.
Today we have a number of large organisations, although, of course, we also have a large number of small ones. Do not let us run away with the idea that they are all big organisations, because more than half the industry of this country is still confined to small units. But progressive managements have had to look round, and they have found disagreement developing over the years. Various methods were tried to overcome this. Sometimes they were resisted.
It is a strange fact, which the hon. Member for Deptford will probably remember, that when some of the committees were started they were resisted, and that was because they were started on wrong lines. There was the fear of undermining the influence of the trade unions. They started to interfere with the trade union organisation. Sometimes that may have been done deliberately, but sometimes, I am sure, it was accidental. People brought up grievances which ought to have been dealt with by the trade unions.
May I give one example in the early days when we were feeling our way with these committees? We decided that we would pick up some money from the shareholders after the next balance sheet and start a works pension scheme. We got it going and then told the people about it, and they did not like it. They said, "That ought to have come from the trade union." They went to the trade union and were told "Go back and don't be fools; they are offering you something for nothing; you take it and be glad." That only goes to show how easy it is for misunderstandings to arise.
Then we had the war and a great movement forward in co-operation because we were in the spirit to co-operate after Dunkirk. I was particularly in touch at that time with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then Minister of Aircraft Production, and he pressed very hard, as the Minister of Labour will remember, for joint production committees in the engineering industry. We accepted them in the engineering world in a way we had never done before, and the federations and the unions got together and worked out the agreements on how these joint production committees should be carried on. They cleared out a lot of the naggers, and we have got on very well since.
Reference has been made to interest dying off, but I would point out that the matter has not been allowed to drift. The Minister of Supply, with whom the world works, realised this, and the Parliamentary Secretary went round the country trying to stir up enthusiasm and get the joint production committees going. I should like to take this opportunity of telling the Parliamentary Secretary how much his work was appreciated. Progress has been made, but it has not been universal. Therefore, I will offer my own experience in the hope that it may help some of those who are doubtful whether these schemes can be made to work and are as valuable as some think them to be.
I have been in this from the initial stage. I was not connected with any cottage industries, and I had nothing in the backyard. I started in a small factory with nothing but the whitewashed walls. It will be appreciated, therefore, that I know what it is to start in a small way. To begin with I had a man, a boy and a girl, so we did not need any joint consultations; we were consulting all the time. When we increased to 10 and then to 20 we still knew each other, and it all worked very nicely. I worked the number up to 100 or so before the First War broke out. We were then making a product that was very necessary for war purposes, and my present organisation approached me and suggested that I should let them take me over. I jumped at the opportunity to come under their wing, and we built up an organisation of 1,000 employees.
We still had the same personal contacts, because the men who were doing


the expansion were men I knew and they passed it round. We were able to keep it a personal organisation until the end of the war. I was then asked to take over control of the organisation, and we developed with the expansion of the motor industry, eventually having factories in Birmingham and around the city. It was then that we began to feel what has been mentioned today—the fact that the organisation was too impersonal. We found that by the time the policy we had settled had got to the men in the shop it had been mangled to pieces. The men simply said, "That is what the boss says," which is just what we did not want. We wanted the policy to be explained, and we had to work out how we could get over this.
We tried many experiments. We started arbitration committees, but we found that questions concerning wages and conditions were cropping up which are not allowed to crop up under our agreement. We now have an agreement with the trade unions, and it has proved most valuable. It has to be understood that hours of work and conditions come under the trade unions, and then the work of the shop stewards is not interferred with in any way. We cannot have competition between the joint production committees and the shop stewards, because if that happens there is trouble.
Another point is that the joint production committees are no substitute for management at any grade on the factory floor. The ranks of management are open to all with the ability to lead and the capacity to take charge, and a large majority of the senior factory officials have risen from the floor of the shop. That must not be interfered with, because there must be no feeling of favouritism. For joint consultation to be effective, it must be accepted and welcomed wholeheartedly by all grades and by the management. There must be no feeling of conflict. The foreman must not feel that his authority is being prejudiced, because if that happens there will be very poor results. Therefore, we bring the foreman into these committees so that he does not feel he is being side-stepped.
Another important matter is who leads these committees. We have laid it down that in all the factories around the city the factory manager must be in the chair

at the meetings of these committees. We have come to the conclusion that the factory manager is the man to take the chair, because he can promote harmony in the ranks, whereas the man below him may not be so acceptable. It makes those who take part in these committees realise it is a worth-while job if the factory manager is taking the chair.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: The whole House is very interested in what my hon. Friend has said about trying to achieve unanimity in these committees. Has he found the shop stewards helpful?

Sir P. Bennett: I am coming to that. As I was saying, we have aimed at getting wholehearted support, but if that is not supplied from the top, the whole job will fall into discredit. In the engineering world there is an agreement between the federations and the engineering unions, and I wish to pay tribute to the way in which it has been worked out and carried out. Any matter which is the prerogative of the shop stewards is accepted, but hours of work, wages, bonuses, piecework and rates are excluded, which helps us to get on. Success depends on the atmosphere created, but some employers and some workers have been very apathetic when this job has been started. Poor results are guaranteed if there is apathy in a job like this.
We then have the criticisms. If the attitude is that these committees deal only with minor matters and that there is no need to worry if they are given the canteens, lavatories and rest rooms to look after, there is bound to be failure. If there is failure, then it is the fault of the management. We always blame the manager first. A lot of the problems and difficulties that arise would not have arisen if the management had got down to the job and had seen the thing coming quickly enough. Like other jobs, success depends on good staff work. It means that top-grade staff work is required. In every works there is a reservoir of people anxious to do something more than their daily task. Our whole local government system is built up on that.
Men are not always suitable and do not always have the qualifications or temperament to take promotion and some do not want to be promoted. One of the difficulties these days is to get people capable of taking responsibility whose


energies can be used to great advantage and harnessed in these committees. I was talking quite recently to some of my military friends, and they tell me it is just the same in the Army. There are men not suitable to be made N.C.O.s but who are very good soldiers, and they like a solid core of these men in their battalions and companies. It is exactly the same with us. We can use these men who have a marvellous moral effect in a factory. In addition to day-to-day problems like canteens and such things, there are problems of the best utilisation of tools and similar matters which, if not looked at, will hinder the flow of goods and stop production.
I am sure the House would like to know some of the matters which we find most valuable in the committees. There is the question of waste, and the saving of time. Since the war we have had a lot of trouble with new labour coming in and getting the men back from the Forces. There is then the question of material and the use of substitute materials, which has caused a lot of trouble. The committees are keen on problems such as these and we overcome waste, which is hurting the national effort. Then there is the reduction of accidents. We make it a personal matter to see that the people obey the rules and regulations. We have a magnificent set of regulations, and we employers are responsible if men break the rules. We take the trouble to see that they are kept by securing the co-operation of these committees. Another place where we get splendid results is in the reduction in the waste of maintenance materials. There was a terrible waste of some of the things which are scarce today.
Last of all, there is the maintenance of quality. It is a great thing if a committee's help can be enlisted in maintaining quality, because it is the quality of British goods which is going to determine our future—and some shoddy stuff has already gone out. We have all our people working to get the quality back to what it used to be. All these matters represent increased production and the reduction of costs. They are matters which are vital today in the present state of our national affairs. We are going to have a hard fight for the markets of the world, and we have to take every step to get

costs down for the fight that is coming. These people help us.
As to the composition of the committees, it was agreed in our business that they should all be trade union members. Once there is agreement on that, a whole lot of trouble is got over. There must be full representation of the foremen and of the local committees. All sections and departments must feel that they have their representatives and that they have access to the management. We have not made any attempt to have equal numbers on the committees. Some of the people are keen to get equal numbers, but the thing is better as we have it organised and we do not worry about equal numbers. The people are elected by secret ballot, which enables any person to be put on. Some shop stewards are elected, while others are not. The man who is not elected can only grumble at those who did not elect him, but people who fail to secure election do not like to grumble. They have a bit of pride, and they try to impress their fellows that for the next time they are the right sort of persons to put on the committee. It is perfectly free for the workers to elect anybody.
It is very important that everything discussed at these joint production committees should be made known to the foreman and superintendent. If that is not done, there will be trouble and difficulties. In the different factories we have joint production committees, and then there is a central one for all our works in Birmingham. What we do not do is try to mix the breeds. We do not bring from London people making aeroplane equipment, or those responsible for fuel, or anything else which is foreign. We keep the industries separate, because we believe we are going to get the best results if we give to the local organisations the fullest responsibility. They do not like people coming from London to tell them what to do in Birmingham. If the workers are made to stand on their own legs, better results will follow.
I am sorry that I have taken up so much of the time of the House, but in conclusion I want to say that if this scheme is treated casually, bad results will ensue. People will get out of it as much as they put in. It is an adjunct to good management and not a substitute for it. If that is borne in mind and the proper


approach made, I believe that in time the system will help to break down that wall which exists between labour and management. If we can get our workpeople to understand that we are pushing in the same direction and we are all in the same scrum, then we will have the workers and management pushing together. The day is coming when Marshall Aid will not be there. We shall be dependent on our own efforts, and if we unite as we did during the war years, pull together and use this and any other means, we shall be able to get back our position in the world.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I do not know whether I should seek the indulgence of the House. I have spoken in this Chamber on a few occasions, but I have had an enforced absence. I am glad to be back, and I am very glad to come back to a Debate which shows such unanimity on both sides of the House. In fact, so much did I agree with the speech of the right hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) that I could almost see the ghost of the Foreign Secretary sitting opposite me on the Opposition Front Bench.
I hesitate to take part in this Debate after the very fine practical example of joint consultation which we have been given by the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett). He issued a word of warning which made me distinctly apprehensive. He said that we almost always listened to people who knew their subject and knew what they were talking about. It will be observed that in this Debate so far, the contributions have come from those who know industry either as trade unionists, engineers or employers. As a mere lawyer I must try at once to justify my intervention. I am going to give an example of what lawyers can produce.
On this matter there is a great deal of agreement on both sides of the House. I should like to associate myself with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) and almost everything that was said by the right hon. Member for Epsom. However, I must tell the House that I feel the emphasis today has been too much on the desirability of joint consultation and not enough on its urgent necessity. I am going to demonstrate that to the House by reference to one industry. While I was absent from this House I

presided over the deliberations of the Cotton Manufacturers' Commission, which was set up to examine the organisation of working and the methods of payment in the cotton manufacturing industry. What took up most of my time for two and a half years was to try to find an answer to their problems. I want to limit my remarks purely to the weaving side, which is only a section of manufacture, as hon. Members will know.
There we were faced with an antiquated wage system which was unfair to the operatives as between one operative and another and was no inducement to enhanced production and increased proficiency. It took us a long time. We examined exhaustively various alternatives that were put before us. In the end we devised an entirely new and scientific system of wages for weaving. It is a revolution which is a credit to the men of Lancashire, the leading figures of the trade unions and the manufacturers who worked on that Commission. It is the first example in the industrial history of this country of a whole industry accepting a scientific settlement. It is the first example in this country of an old-established industry throwing overboard its accumulated agreements of years and starting afresh. It is a magnificent achievement and is a great credit to Lancashire. It was not only accepted unanimously by the Commission over which I presided, but eventually it received the approval of both sides of the industry. It featured in the terms of a trade union agreement between the manufacturers and the weavers' representatives, subject to this, that the new system should be put into effect wherever we could secure local agreement.
Will the House accept it from me that this new system is essential to securing the increased productivity that we want, to make up for the deficiency of manpower to give better wages and conditions to those who work in the industry and to cheapen the products? I could elaborate on all this but I ask the House to accept it from me. This system is in operation in some mills. Something of the kind was put into operation in one or two mills several years ago, but the pace is too slow. What is the reason?
It has been discovered by all industrial consultants who have examined the situation in the weaving sheds and have


devised a new and scientific system, that it is hopeless to try to put the system into operation unless we get the weaving operatives to go with us all the way. When I was in Holland discussing this topic with the leading industrial consultants in that country, I found that when they were introducing a new system they had started as any of us might do. They tried converting the directors first, then converting the managers and foremen, and then approaching and persuading the workers. Experience taught them that the quickest and best way of getting a new system of wages into operation was to start at the bottom. That is why I stand here to urge that the Minister, the Government, the trade unions and the manufacturers in Lancashire should get on with the job and should set up these committees wherever they can.
Let me say at once that we cannot force it. We cannot prescribe any particular form for it. It will vary all over Lancashire. It has to be suited not only to the size of the unit but to the kind of work it does. Indeed, it has sometimes to be suited even to the shape of the factory. His Majesty's Government should look upon this matter as urgent and should exert all the persuasion they can upon both sides of the industry. It is not easy. The trade unions are naturally suspicious that their function will be usurped. The managers are naturally suspicious that the functions of management are going to be usurped by these committees, or councils—call them what you will. Therefore it is useful to have the example of people like the hon. Member for Edgbaston who have put these things into practice.
That is the immediate problem for the cotton industry, but I will go further. The day is coming when we shall have to have a wages policy in this country. We cannot have a wages policy unless we have a sensible way of adjustment between the claims of different industries upon the wage pool in this country, and of adjusting the claims inside an industry of its different categories of workers. That is what they call by the queer expression "job evaluation." I wish that these industrial consultants did not devise such awkward terms.
It can be done very successfully. There are countries in Europe where it is operating now by agreement among all sides.

We can never have it in this country unless we have these committees to agree upon job evaluation. We want them from the long-term point of view of working towards a wages policy. We are able to say: "We are the finest political democracy in the world. Nobody can compare with us." If we can make this change, we shall be able to say that we have created the finest industrial democracy in the world.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Carr: This is the first occasion on which I have had the honour to address this House and I humbly ask for that tolerance and friendliness which is its tradition on these occasions and which, as a new Member, I have seen finely exampled during the last few weeks.
I particularly welcome the opportunity of talking to the House for the first time on this subject. It is one of which I have some small experience—only very small when compared with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett)—and one on which I feel most strongly. My only diffidence on the subject is that after the House has heard that speech from my hon. Friend one feels that there is very little left to be said about it. When one wants to know how joint consultation should be developed, one wishes that my hon. Friend could go round the country talking about it to those who have doubts in their minds. One feels that they would be persuaded.
It is natural that with the present national position we tend to think of the merits of joint consultation in terms of its economic aspect and of the gains we hope to get in production. I agree that that aspect is important, but in the long term I believe that we shall find, if we look at it carefully, that the social aspect is at least as important. It seems to me absolutely vital under present conditions to find a remedy for some of the evils and troubles which have arisen from large-scale production and mechanisation, and loss of satisfaction in work which has come from the decreasing opportunities for the practice of skilled craftsmanship. I know that all this mechanisation will give us greater wealth and leisure, and that there are some who think that these will be sufficient rewards, but I believe most deeply that a man will never find


satisfaction in his leisure unless he has first found satisfaction in his work.
It is towards processes such as joint consultation that we must turn to find a remedy. It cannot be a rapid cure. It is most important to stress that. If we go into it thinking that it will cure all our difficulties at once, there will be disillusionment and disappointment, but I believe that it can be a solvent for our difficulties and problems and that if we apply it with determination and perseverance it can be a big help in providing that social harmony and unity of purpose which is so important in this country at the moment, and will be still more so in the difficult years that lie ahead of us.
To come back to the economic aspect, I am convinced from my own experience on the floor of a foundry and of a press shop, that whatever mechanisation and line production we may have, the human element is, and will always be, the most important factor for getting high production. Here again, it seems that we must look towards methods such as joint consultation to get that extra little bit of co-operation without which we shall not get the best out of even the most highly automatic plant and machinery. We must not expect it to produce results all at once, for it will take time and practice but, again from personal experience, I know that it will work.
In the latter years of the war I had the job of taking charge of a new factory run by my company for the Ministry for the production of cast aluminium alloy undercarriage support beams for the Lancaster bomber. We were ready for full-scale production and had worked out all the production schedules. We put up a production bonus scheme, but we met tremendous opposition. I did not know how to get round it. The men said that the targets were ridiculous, that the incentive bonuses were insufficient and that they would never earn their money.
I went to the management and got permission to put all our cards on the table. Eight of the men—two from each of the four main production sections—came to my office and I put before them all the costings, showing them the price we got for the beams, the element of the metal cost, fuel costs and overheads and all the rest, and persuaded them that the terms of the incentive bonus gave them

a fair share of the price that we got for the beams.
Having started on that, we were able to put our heads together to see how we could reach our target. It was something like 20 beams per shift. From that moment it was as if magic had fallen on the shop. The men came to me with suggestions, such as how they could stagger their furnacemen's shifts so that metal was ready at the beginning of the next shift. In a week or two we were getting beams in the quantities required, the men were getting their money and were satisfied, and we were all enjoying the job.
We must be clear about the purpose of joint consultation. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have already stressed the important points, that it is not for labour to gain control over management or vice versa, that it is not to weaken the traditional functions of the trade unions—far from it—and that it is not to weaken the right of decision of management. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston refer to foremen. There is some danger if we are not careful that joint consultation may weaken the status and authority of foremen. I believe that the foreman has a very important rôle in production, a rôle which in this country at the moment we sometimes do not recognise fully. When at the end of last year I had an opportunity to go over some American factories, the thing that impressed me almost more than anything else was the status, knowledge and training of their foremen. It compared unfavourably from our point of view with the practice I had seen in some of our factories. I hope we shall watch that aspect very closely.
There is one purpose—a subsidiary one but an important one—which joint consultation can serve that has not yet been mentioned this afternoon, and that is that it can provide an extremely important training ground and opportunity for promotion for the workers' representatives to the highest levels of management. That can be a very important by-product of joint consultation.
When it comes to the methods of joint consultation, I must support very strongly what has been stressed on all sides this afternoon, the need for it to be voluntary, the need also for leadership to come from


the top level of management and the top level on the trade union side as well, and that the machinery must not on any account be rigid or uniform. It cannot be There must be differences. Each case must be tailored to meet the needs of each factory and each industry. The other thing to which we must give publicity as we try to persuade people to take this up is that, although formal machinery is necessary, the formal machinery of joint consultation is the end and not the beginning. If we think that all we have to do is to elect a joint consultative council and then sit back, we are in for a very sad disappointment, and that sort of council will never get beyond the canteens and the lavatories about which one of my hon. Friends spoke.
There are one or two other smaller points about the formation of these councils to which I should like to draw attention. I believe that all representatives on the workers' side should be trade union members. I put forward the suggestion with sincerity that the election should be by secret ballot. I also believe that there should be small works constituencies, and the constituency from which a representative is chosen should not, if possible, comprise more than 25 people. I also believe that it is of great value if the consultative council is not equally balanced between the two sides. Let there be more workers' representatives than management representatives. Let there be a power to vote if necessary, but let voting be deprecated. I do not want to see the two sides lined up in equal forces on either side of the table.
The idea of joint consultation in my mind fits into a long-term political policy and philosophy. We on this side of the House try to pursue a policy which will combine liberty with order in which the burden of responsibility and the risks of opportunity are tempered with a guaranteed degree of security. This is the industrial facet of that policy. We envisage an industrial structure in which the central government interferes to an extent sufficient to implement a full employment policy, and to an extent sufficient to safeguard the consumer and efficient production from dangers such as those of monopolies and restrictive practices, but beyond that limit leaves

the field clear to competitive enterprise stimulated and driven by the incentives of success and failure to lead to efficiency and the development of new ventures.
If in that set-up of competitive industry which I have described we have the rights of workers safeguarded by strong independent trade unions dealing with the collective bargaining of wages and conditions, and if we have that partnership of which joint consultation is the main pillar, we shall be working towards a society in which there is that widespread ownership of managerial and economic power, and that diversity of interest and opportunity which are essential if democracy is to progress in an industrial civilisation.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Gunter: It is with great pleasure that I conform to the ancient and pleasant tradition of this House by congratulating the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr) on his maiden speech. The hon. Member has revealed in that speech a deep and real knowledge of the subject. As the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) said, the House always listens with keen attention to a speaker who knows what he is talking about, so I am quite sure that the House will look forward to listening to the hon. Member for Mitcham on future occasions.
The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) is to be congratulated on introducing a subject of such importance, and the House has been at its best this afternoon in the discussion on this matter. We have had little of controversy but we have had some excellent contributions. We are all agreed that the health and the temper of British industry is of paramount importance to the nation, especially at present. The future of our people and the part the nation ought to play as a great world Power depends upon the speed with which we can raise our industrial production and how we can increase that production in more effective ways. All our efforts will be of little account unless at the same time as we are revolutionising our industrial system we can bring the happiest possible human relations into our industries.
There are great changes taking place in the industrial set-up. Great revolutions are being wrought in many industries. We witness them day by day and


take little notice of them, but I am convinced that, looking back in 20 years, we shall be amazed at the technical alterations being made now; and for this reason, if for no other, that it is essential that the relationships between employed and employers shall be adjusted continually to meet these radical alterations so that they shall not be the cause of increasing friction. We may have the most perfect plans for reorganisation, we may introduce the maximum amount of machinery to enable us to meet the great tasks that lie before British industry, but if we overlook the importance of industrial relationships, or, indeed, if we evade them because of the difficulties inherent in them, we shall run into serious difficulties.
We have to do all we can, all of us—I speak of trade unions, managements, Parliament and the Press—to bring about a full appreciation of the common interest we all have in building up British industry so that it may enable this country to stand upon its own feet, independent and proud. The chief aim of joint consultation must be to improve the relationships between management and men, to get all those engaged in factory and workshop, in mines and on railways, to understand the purpose of the great effort that this nation is making, and to obtain a mutual respect and confidence.
From that understanding and tolerance and kindness of spirit existing between management and men, greater production will flow, and it is that confidence between management and men that we so much require now. It was indeed encouraging to hear the hon. Member for Edgbaston speaking of his own experiences. We could only wish that those had been extended over much wider fields of British industry, but that is not so—

Mr. Osborne: That is not true.

Mr. Gunter: I fear that it is true. Later I will speak about the fields where that confidence exists, but it does not exist in other fields and we may as well face the fact. If the hon. Member will allow me to go on with my speech, I was about to say that we do ourselves no good by denigrating the efforts already made. A comparison of the relationships existing in industry today with those of even a few decades ago gives a picture of a remarkable achievement by the British people, an achievement of which we have every reason to be proud. If certain organs of

the British Press devoted half their space to telling the story of this great achievement instead of placing their emphasis upon the irritations, frustrations and disputes in industry, our people would have a clearer conception of the great distance we have travelled over the past few years and would welcome, as I am sure the whole House does, this great advance in the field of better relationships. I believe that the majority of employers and employed today desire to establish or to maintain a state of trust and confidence, and they certainly do not want an atmosphere of antagonism and suspicion to blight our efforts.
Having said that, I must add that it would be silly of us to be complacent. The hon. and learned Member for Islington, North (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes) said he had been rather concerned that in the Debate up to the time he spoke, there had been no note of urgency about the necessity for greater development in this sphere. In every field of activity in British industry we need desperately to do all we can to build up mutual confidence between management and men so that our efforts may be the greatest possible.
It has been suggested in certain quarters that you can have compulsory co-operation. I say, as a trade union Member of Parliament, that it still waffles around the Trades Union Congress when it meets. It may well be, as has been suggested by certain trade union leaders, that by the forcible bringing together of management and men we might, by the very fact of contact, eventually develop a better understanding. But I do not think that we can force management and men to co-operate in the long run. If there be obstinacy on one side or the other, or on both, inevitably there will not be the joint consultation that is desired. We might go through the motions of joint consultation, but there would be absent that attitude of mind, that broad tolerance and willingness to listen to the other side, patiently and intelligently, to try to discover what the other fellow is talking about—in other words, to win confidence; the confidence of managements and of men, whose mutual trust is the keynote of it all.
The winning of that confidence over large fields of industry must be undertaken by both sides. I do not think that


any manifesto of the Conservative Party or of the Labour Party, or any exhortations from any Government Front Bench, will take us very much further in the field of joint consultation. The next great move, or the new sense of urgency, must be brought about by the trade unions and by the employers themselves. It is those two sides who must really get down to extending the field of joint consultation.
During the past few years there has been a very rapid development in the participation of trade unions in our economic life. At the top level this participation is accepted as a very wise and fruitful thing, but unless it is brought down from the highest levels of Government, of Transport House and all the rest, to factory and workshop level it will in the last resort be of little avail. The necessity for that co-operation and consultation which exists at the highest possible level must now be interpreted in the lower levels of industry and in the trade union organisation.
The great contribution which the trade unions could make at this time is to reequip themselves for their new functions in our national life. We are trying to operate the trade union machine with the weapons or instruments of 25 years ago. The unions must face up to the fact that if they are to enjoy this participation, which rightly they do enjoy, they must seriously review the way in which they are to perform their tasks in industry. Therefore, I make the suggestion that recognising, as do the trade union leaders, that in the long run better standards of life are dependent upon increased and efficient production, the task now is to interpret that necessity to the workers in the factories; but that is not easy.
The hon. Member for Edgbaston was speaking of a comparatively new industry, but we all know, on this side of the House at least, that it is not an easy task to allay the haunting fears of the past which still exist in the minds of many workers. It is no good for hon. Members opposite to argue about this and to tell us how illogical is that attitude. Thousands of workers have a profound distrust of any machinery which increases production, because at the back of their minds is the fear that it will result in short-time working and possibly unemployment. However

different the circumstances may be today, we may as well face the fact that that fear still exists.
Another fear which lingers—hon. Members opposite may say that it does not, or should not, but it nevertheless remains—is the memory of bad managements and of vindictiveness. There is a very real fear on the part of thousands of workers that in the past managements were bad and vindictive, and are still as evilmotived even in these days. These fears and suspicions, which retard the development of the machinery of consultation, can best be removed by the unions themselves. It is not much good for the employers to do much about this, and I am pretty sure that it is not much use for the Government to do so. This is fundamentally a task for the trade unions, who ought to spend more time, energy and money upon the education, particularly of the active trade unionist, for which they are responsible. One of the main functions of trade unions today should be the stimulation of output, which in many cases they have accepted. We accept it as part of the function of the unions, but there still exists that suspicion of labour-saving devices and machinery and a reluctance to accept shift work, payment by results, and so forth.
I suggest that the unions could, and ought to, make a far bigger contribution, in explaining the situation of the nation, in pointing out that these fears which are still held, sometimes justifiably, belong really to a past age. They ought to devote more money to the education of some of their officials, so that they may be equipped for teaching these facts to their members and workpeople. The unions desire, and might well assist in, a greater drive for joint consultation and co-operation by placing far more emphasis upon the dissemination of the facts of the economic situation, so that we might have an educated body of workers who knew exactly what was wanted in joint consultation and who knew the meaning of the effort which they were asked to make.
I am bound to say, in passing, that one of the weaknesses of the trade union movement is that in comparison with many other industrial nations—I had better be careful here, or I shall be in trouble—hardly a union in this country has a research department worthy of the name.

Mr. Harry Wallace: Will the hon. Member name a trade union which does not have a research department?

Mr. Gunter: I said that I should need to be careful. I could name half a dozen or more which do not have a research department worthy of the name—those were my words. We still have a lot to learn in the unions in the development of research departments which can assist in educating our members and enabling them to play their part in joint consultation.
Another point that we ought to get perfectly clear in our minds is that there is still a lot of confused talk about the meaning of joint consultation. There has been an amazing revival of the old syndicalist idea of direct workers' control in certain sections of labour. In my opinion, it is impossible to envisage any great development in the sphere of joint consultation if we imagine that this old, woolly idea of workers' control can operate. In the last resort management must be allowed to manage and to make decisions and must accept the responsibility. What we seek is that their decisions and policy shall be translated to the workers so that they may understand their objectives and thereby help to ensure that co-operation which can result in much better and higher production. I cannot leave the trade union side without expressing my belief that the majority of trade unionists do not desire to see the establishment of workers' control, as it is sometimes called. What we desire and demand is the maximum of co-operation and consultation, so that we may make our maximum contribution to the national effort.
I should like to say one other thing from our experience of joint consultation in the nationalised industries. Never before in the history of transport, for instance, did we have the machinery for consultation which we have today. There is sometimes a lot of talk from the other side about a diminution of the old family spirit, but we never saw much of that family spirit except in past years when sacrifices were required from the railwaymen. We have the machinery, but it is not working as successfully as it ought because we still have men on the management side who were brought up in the old atmosphere and who still suffer from

suspicions in the same way as some of the workers are suffering. We have on the management side, men who still find it impossible to believe that the workpeople ought to be consulted. What we require is that the top-level spirit and atmosphere of consultation shall filter down.
I believe that the Railway Executive is quite honest and sincere in its desire to see consultation reach the highest degree of success, but it is at the lower levels that we meet difficulties. It is, therefore incumbent on the Railway Executive or those at the top to ensure that those holding less important posts in the structure shall be brought to understand what is required of them, that consultation shall not be merely a formal process of listening to what workers have to say about this or that, but that it shall be really a matter of the spirit and that they ought to accept the contributions of the workers, give them their full and proper value and use them, when at all possible. We also feel in transport that in the lower regions there is still too small a desire on the part of the management to give the fullest information to the men. One cannot really consult if those representing the workers are in ignorance of half the facts—facts which they can only obtain from the management. There must be that willingness to give and to let the workers really feel they have the fullest information.
The country has gone a long way and we have much to be proud of. I believe we can write an even more glorious page of history if both sides of industry will recognise the urgency of the task before them, and try now to build up the happiest spirit of co-operation and mutual trust. I am sure we shall see the results in a far greater contribution to the national effort, for in the last resort the purpose of joint consultation and the purpose of all our efforts is to see this nation once more strong, firm and proud in its independence, and this is one of the factors by which that can be achieved.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Wade: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) on introducing this subject. He has performed a very valuable service in making this discussion possible. All hon. Members will agree that the contributions that have been made have been valuable and useful. I


think it would be fair to say, although this is not an occasion on which speeches of a party political nature are being made, that the party to which I belong have for years been deeply interested in the subject of industrial relations. After all, it was a Liberal who was the chairman of a committee which recommended the setting up of joint industrial councils—I mean the Whitley Councils. I think it unfortunate that more progress was not made in the days after the 1914–18 war in the setting up of joint industrial councils. Some say that it was partly due to lack of adequate powers, but in the main it was due to the prevailing suspicion of both sides which has been only gradually broken down.
I might perhaps remind the House that between 1930 and 1934 a series of Bills was introduced by Members of the Liberal Party—the National Industrial Councils Bill, the Industrial Councils Bill and the Works Councils Bill. If I might put a little variation into the theme about the bad old days before the war, I would point out that none of those Bills reached a Second Reading because there was not sufficient interest on the part of the Government, or of supporters of the Government, of the day.
We are concerned with the present and the future rather than the past, and I agree with other hon. Members that there has been a change of outlook and this change of outlook is most important. I quote from a leading article in "The Times" of 20th April, 1947, which refers to some remarks of Mr. W. B. D. Brown of the Glacier Metal Company:
The phrase 'joint consultation,'" says Mr. W. B. D. Brown, of the Glacier Metal Company, one of the most successful practitioners of joint consultation, "should convey an attitude of mind rather than a clearly defined process. Its function is ultimately to get rid of the division of factories into 'bosses and the rest' which still colours the background thinking of most people.
I think there is general agreement that this change of outlook is necessary.
I wish to make a few remarks on the purpose of joint consultation rather than on machinery. The machinery is most important, but even more important is the purpose. I would agree that roughly there are three kinds. There is consultation over wages and general conditions

in which the unions are particularly concerned, although, I am not suggesting that they are not equally concerned with other aspects of joint consultation. Secondly, there are various advisory bodies dealing with the policy of an industry, and thirdly, forms of joint consultation at the factory level, or in the individual firm—works councils and joint production committees. While I appreciate the need for consultation at a high level, I wish to stress the vital importance of consultation at the factory level. The ultimate object of all this consultation is to create a real partnership, and to get that real partnership there must be consultation at the factory level.
I know there are still some sceptics who do not agree with this idealism. Although they have been absent from the House today, there are still employers who think that a worker is interested only in his pay packet and who regard him as a mere name or number on the pay roll; but they are not the enlightened employers. There are still some trade unionists who are a bit afraid of works councils and joint production committees, but they are not among the more enlightened trade unionists.
Assuming that joint consultation is desirable, there are certain conditions which must be satisfied. The first is the obvious one of right personal relationships, because human relationships in industry count for so much. If only we could solve this problem of the right relationships in industry, I believe that we could increase productivity from 20 per cent. to 100 per cent. varying in different firms and industries. I believe we could do that in spite of the fact that in many cases our machinery is out-of-date compared with that of the United States. I believe much more could be done with the aid of joint consultation in the way of welfare, because, valuable as welfare schemes are, they are not enough unless they are combined with joint consultation.
I quote again, this time from the "Financial Times" of 30th January last. In an article written by a managing director, he stated:
I am always sceptical of claims that the introduction of this or that change has resulted in a phenomenal increase in productivity, but, during the four post-war years, the productivity of my factory (administrative staff included) has increased by about 28 per cent.


above the figure for 1937–38, our best previous year. This increased productivity has not been due to new machinery because we have not yet been able to instal any of any consequence. The one big change to account for the improvement has been the steady intensification of our welfare activities.
That is the first point, the right human relationships. The second, which has also been mentioned by other speakers, is the need for absolute frankness on the part of management. The danger of giving away secrets is not nearly so great as the harm that comes from being too "close" in dealing with employees. I believe that we get the ideal form of co-partnership, co-operation or whatever one cares to call it, when we have a sharing of ownership, a sharing of profits and a sharing of knowledge and responsibility.
It is the last aspect which we are discussing today, the sharing of knowledge and responsibility, which is absolutely essential. That does not mean that the work in any kind of industrial concern can be run by workers' committees. There is all the difference between sharing knowledge and control by a committee of workers. I am not for one moment advocating that syndicalist point of view. It might contribute a little light relief if I referred to one of the very earliest known cases of co-partnership. In the days at the beginning of the last century a certain Lord Wallscourt introduced profit-sharing and a form of what we should now call consultative machinery on his farm. It was very unusual to introduce this principle into farming. He made the following comment in 1846, after it had been in operation for some time:
I have tried the plan for 17 years, and have found it to answer much beyond my hopes, inasmuch as it completely identifies the workmen with the success of the farm, besides giving me full liberty to travel on the Continent for a year at a time, and upon my return I have always found that the farm had prospered more than when I was present.
Neither I nor anyone else here is advocating that.
What I am leading up to is that there are firms in which there are works committees, and which stop at that; the owners are not in favour of joint production committees. My belief, with which the majority of Members here will agree, is that the workers have a valuable contribution to make on the subject of production and efficiency if only their recommendations are taken seriously. I regret

the going out of existence of a number of the joint production committees.
Assuming it to be desirable that the men should make their contribution on these various committees in the matter of production and increased efficiency, three things should follow, and it is on these that I am asking for the opinion of those with greater experience than myself in the working of consultative machinery. One is that if there should be an increase in profits is it not fair that in those circumstances there should be a fair sharing of those increases in profits amongst all concerned, management and men, and not only among capital investors? The second concerns the fact that we come up almost immediately against the problem of restrictive practices, and that increased production and greater efficiency cannot be brought about unless we face the whole problem of restrictive practices in industry. The third point, which is closely bound up with the second concerns the problem of redundancy which may follow as a result of increased productivity.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Which restrictive practices has the hon Member in mind, because this charge is often flung about? We should like more precise evidence.

Mr. Wade: Certainly. One example I had in mind was where new machinery is introduced which can cut down the number of men required from three to one, and where the three men are retained. That is the kind of thing I had in mind. That leads me to my further point that there is this feeling that increased productivity may result in a man's pals being thrown off. That is what I mean by redundancy.

Mr. Mikardo: Can the hon. Member really quote a single current example of the generalisation which he has just made, namely that where a machine can be introduced to reduce the amount of labour required, workers resist its introduction?

Mr. Wade: If the hon. Member will give me time, I will check some of the cases that have been given to me.
In connection with redundancy, the point I am advocating, with which I do not think hon. Members opposite will disagree, is that consultative machinery


is valuable in dealing with this subject. I would recommend to anyone who is interested an article in the March issue of "Business," the journal of management in industry. It describes how this problem was successfully faced by joint consultation. There had to be a considerable reduction in the number of employees and the matter was smoothly dealt with by joint consultation.
My last theme, which is less controversial than the one I have been questioned about, is this aspect of there being two sides in industry. This has not arisen only since we have had large-scale industry. To take Yorkshire as an example, and looking back over a hundred years, the position was that of the master manufacturer working in his own home with one or two assistants. Then came the Industrial Revolution, but even then for a time master and men lived close together round the factory and the mill. There was still the feeling that "This is our show": there was still a kind of consultative machinery. Then as the employer became better off, he went to live outside the town in a large house. It was then that the beginning was seen of two sides in industry, with too much overcrowding of the workers in the towns.
We are still suffering from that great divide, which was brought about long before we had large-scale industry. Whatever may be our views on the subject upon which I have been questioned, I am sure we all agree that it is of vital importance that we should bring to an end this division into two camps, that we should end the feeling of there being two sides in industry by the creation of a real partnership. Only in that way shall we surmount the difficulties which face industry in the future.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I welcome the opportunity of taking part in what I consider to be a very healthy and, up to now, very constructive Debate on this highly important problem. I should like to compliment my hon. Friend who opened the Debate on the way he presented the case and I should also like to compliment the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) who followed from the Opposition Front Bench. There are

occasions when the House at all events by what is said seems to reach a measure of agreement. But it is not what is said here today in this Debate that really matters. Honeyed words seem all right, but it is the implementation hereafter with which I am vitally concerned. I have read the pamphlet that the Opposition presented today with such gusto and I would suggest that if one-twentieth, or indeed one-fiftieth part of its proposals had been carried out in the last 20 years 4ve should not be having this Debate about joint consultation in industry.
I am tempted to offer the suggestion that that pamphlet, designed, as it is, for electioneering purposes, tells a rather different story from the one which could be told about industrial relationships of the past. But all that is water which has flowed under the bridge. All that has happened in the past will not help tomorrow, and it is with tomorrow that we are concerned. Industry, today, is insolubly tied up with our economy. So far as I can see our economy is tied up with our policy; therefore it is a good thing that those of us who are expected to create policy, and to implement it, should take part in this Debate.
Joint consultation? Yes. But at what level? For what purpose? How far shall it go, and by whom? That is the problem. I suppose there are hon. Members present who would say, "You come from an industry that does not have any industrial problems, so what do you know about it? "I would suggest that those in an industry which shows signs of having reached a great measure of agreement are those who have learned something about industrial negotiations, who have succeeded, with the least amount of trouble, in establishing a practical foundation; and who have made sensible and constructive attempts to solve this problem.
There are all sorts of consultations. There is the consultation with the doctor, when he is the specialist who says what he thinks should be done, and prescribes something with which it is done. Never yet have I gone to a meeting—and I have attended many thousands of them—and been allowed to suggest a formula for what I think would be good for me. I have never been at a meeting round an industrial board, where I was allowed to suggest what should be put into the


pay packets of the directors. I have always attended meetings where the directors have had the opportunity and the ability to suggest what would be good for me—right down to the fourth decimal point of a penny per ton for some very valuable steel.
This Debate is of the greatest importance to productivity, which is the most vital thing of all. I may claim in all humility to have spent a considerable time during the last few years in talking to all sorts of people in all sorts of industries; and I would say that there has been a great measure of progress made within industry. I know that there are hon. Members in this House who believe that we should have Utopia because we have a Socialist Government. But we had a war, when men did not have the time to discuss and go into this great problem. We therefore find ourselves with a post-war problem of great magnitude; not having had the opportunity to attune our minds—this applies particularly to the workers in factories—to our responsibilities. I am often asked: What is the biggest problem of this Government, what is one of its biggest headaches? I reply that it is to get into the hearts and minds, of all men, and not only of managements, a sense of their responsibility to themselves, to their employers and to the nation.
The vital question is, consultation for what? In the interests of our national recovery? If that is so, the answer is "Yes." But if it is in the interest of increasing dividends, that, of course, is another story. Why should I attend a meeting of a joint consultation body, or productivity committee, a safety first committee, or a works savings committee—I could go through the whole gamut, having attended so many of them? Why should I be there? What for? If it is suggested by the Opposition that there should be joint consultations for and on behalf of our national recovery and national economy, I think we should be 100 per cent. agreed. If however, we are to be told by the older generation of management—and here I would pay tribute to the newer generation of management—"You shall do this as a number of individual"—so that Mr. A. or Mr. B. or somebody else shall benefit—we shall not get very far.
In my time I have taken part not only in joint consultations inside my own industry, but I have made it my business to try to find out what things are discussed in joint consultation committees and joint production committees in the various works which I have had the privilege of visiting. There are our own employees in the Royal Ordnance Factories, which is a case in point. I have considerable experience of dealing with a few people who felt that the exploitation of their fellow men and of the country was the right thing to do. If we go to the ordinary British working man and put to him a clear-cut case, in language which he can understand, we shall always get a ready response. If, however, we make the case complex; if we present it in a way he does not understand, using legal jargon and terms which are often heard in this House and which perplex him, we shall get no results.
It is true that extreme Left wing exploiters of our economy have taken advantage of opportunities for infiltration. But that is not the fault of the management. When speaking of the trade union movement I have always said that a wrong man put into a position of responsibility did not put himself there. He was elected at some time because of the apathy of the very decent fellows. But that phase is passing. I think we have seen the end of it, and are now seeing the realisation by our people of the needs of the country.
The question is, what shall be discussed at these joint consultations? The cold cup of tea? Yes. The fellow who did not quite do his job. The canteen, the potatoes which were not as hot they ought to have been? Yes. The foreman who was a little arrogant, and did not like the colour of the eyes of the chef who said something to a relative somewhere else? Yes. But when we get to the higher levels; when we want to see what is happening to the company's accounts; when we get to the question of what are the costs of raw materials; what is the effect of devaluation upon the company's order books; what is the effect of a change in currency in a country where the completed orders are to go—when we get to the higher managerial functions very often, too often, we find


that the management take the line that, "This is not your business."
I wish to make a suggestion, and I am not speaking particularly of my own industry. As I have already said, each man in my industry is almost a production unit on his own. He has to get the tonnage. If he does not get the tonnage he gets no "brass"; and if he gets no "brass" he starves, so he has to be almost a production committee himself to ensure that he lives. I believe the time has arrived when we should go much further than having people elected to represent their fellow men and to meet those selected by the managing director to meet them.
I am an advocate of mass meetings of men in factories, at which the position would be explained to them. I say that any employer who would allow time for his employees to attend such mass meetings, and pay them to attend, would get results that would stagger him—provided that the person who addresses the meeting knew his job and explained the position to the men in language which they could understand. There is a great future to be explored in the direction of mass meetings, with the men being brought together by the management, along with responsible trade union officials, to discuss the whys and wherefors of their position.
I had the privilege of visiting a factory where there were £7 million worth of orders on the book and tens of thousands of pounds worth of dollar orders were being refused. Yet the men were working a straight 40-hour week. I suggested that something should be done in the way of overtime. All hon. Members know what I said, and I make no apology for having said it. I suggested that some of the orders should be cleared more quickly, and the management said that they did not think that the men would like that. When the men were questioned, they said that the management had not asked them. When the two sides were brought together, within a few days of joint consultation, they found that there was much common ground and the men immediately started Saturday morning work. The products began to flow out more freely, and the firm were able to book orders which earn dollars so vital for the purchase of the food on which we live.
The problem is to know the line of demarcation, to know where to start and finish. There is accredited machinery to deal with wages. One of my hon. Friends spoke about trade union officials coming to London. Of course, they come to London nowadays on wage problems which they fail to settle at the local level. That does not mean that there has to be this remote idea of wage control. It is because managements have set the pattern of always coming to London to meet other directors who are working in conjunction with them—or sometimes in opposition—to find what rates are being paid, because they are afraid that there will be unfair competition if they pay a slightly higher rate. The trade union official is following the example set by management.
At the General Election we found that the Conservative Party polled 12 million votes in support of their policy, advanced in "This is the Road," of a far better standard of existence for the workers than that which we ourselves had put forward. That was electioneering, of course. If we can get the 12 million people who voted for that policy to implement it along with the 13,250,000 who supported the Labour candidates and their policy of keeping con
ditions from becoming no worse, then this country has not much need to worry. The important question is whether we intend to implement what is said in this House. Does industry, as represented by hon. Members opposite, really mean business at last? I hope that it does.
There are industries which desperately need to be investigated. I have a little, though not considerable, knowledge of the textile industry. There is an opportunity for the trade unions, of which there are literally hundreds in the one industry, to get together on joint consultation within their own ranks. There are vital problems to be solved. I trust that as a result of this Debate, with what I construe to be the promises which had been made, something will be done.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett), a very good personal friend, who has had considerable knowledge of industry. I often wonder why the hon. Gentleman does not sit on this side of the


House. His long, wide and varied experience has given him the opportunity to speak with real authority about conditions from the bottom to the top—

Mr. McCorquodale: That is why he is here.

Mr. Jones: Not necessarily. It may be because of the company he keeps, rather than from a sincere conviction of what he really thinks he ought to do.
I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour on his appointment. He has had experience as a convenor of one of our biggest shops in an industry which is of vital importance. I know that the intentions of the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary are strictly honourable. If the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite are implemented, nobody will be better pleased than we on this side of the House.
Never in the history of Britain was it so vitally necessary as it is today that there should be harmony in industry and a maximum effort by all, from the very top to the very bottom, to produce efficiently the highest possible volume of goods of the highest possible quality at the lowest possible cost. Unless we do that, then, despite all we do as politicians about the economics of the situation, the new, approaching attack upon the world's markets by Germany, Japan and other nations will show that any opportunity arising from our own faults will be exploited to the full to our detriment. Goodness knows, the industrial rope has been frayed enough in the past. We can no longer afford to have these divisions. I welcome the opportunity of having been able to make a contribution to this Debate as one who comes from an industry which has a harmony in production which is a pattern for the world.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Ian Orr-Ewing: The whole House has been extremely interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones). He speaks with the advantage of many years' practical experience of the difficulties which are to be met in achieving what we all want to bring about, namely, an extension of joint consultation. I was specially interested in what he said about the policy of the party to which I belong as it was set out at the

time of the General Election. I rather gathered that if he were convinced that we on this side of the House are sincere in putting forward that policy and that we would do everything we could to, implement it, he would join with us and support our action. As he ended by saying that this is the most important step that could be taken for the good of industry, no doubt he would go so far as to join us on this side of the House.
Perhaps that may be a little optimistic, but at least we have found on the Floor of the House a common aim and a great deal of agreement about the steps which should be taken towards that common aim. That, in itself, may be of encouragement to the country and of encouragement, and possibly of example, to industry. The hon. Gentleman made one remark which was a little alarming. It showed how deep still runs the suspicion of which he spoke and of which, I think it is right to say, he showed dislike. It was a suspicion that if both workers and management enter into joint consultation, they will merely plan to add to the profits and dividends of the firm concerned. I hope that he did not mean to imply that that feeling was widespread. I do not believe that it is.

Mr. Jack Jones: I said that where the workers had the feeling that the joint consultation in which they took part would result in increased profits for individuals, they would not put forward the same effort as they would if they knew that the joint consultation was for and on behalf of the recovery and betterment of Britain.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I see the point. Surely, the answer is that there must be something wrong with the wage structure, or something else, if in fact added efficiency does not get the additional reward which it deserves. I think that side of the matter is outside the normal scope of joint consultation as we are discussing it today. It is far better left in the hands of the recognised authorities, such as the unions and the employers' federations—

It being Seven o'Clock, and there being Private Business set down by the direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for Taking Private Business), further proceeding stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL [By Order]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think this Bill will detain the House for very long, although there are one or two points in it to which some of my hon. Friend and I take exception. The Bill gives to Government Corporations powers which are new so far as these bodies are concerned. For example, we do not like Clause 87 (12) and (14), nor Clause 89 (3). These subsections give nationalised industries special immunities; and, if they are allowed in Wolverhampton, there is a danger that this Bill might become a precedent for their doing things which other industries are not allowed to do.
We are not proposing tonight to ask the House to divide in favour of any instructions to the Committee, but we would like to put on record our views in regard to these Clauses. We see no reason why a nationalised industry which claims to be a model employer should need these powers. It may be that the Committee upstairs may decide to take these powers out of the Bill, and we hope that they will give the most careful examination to these particular Clauses. If the Opposition find that these Clauses remain in the Bill, and if at any time, in our view, the powers given are abused, or if, on further consideration, we so decide, we shall not hesitate to oppose the inclusion of any similar powers in any future local legislation.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I wish very briefly to reinforce the hope expressed by my hon. Friend that the Committee dealing with this Bill will look very closely at the privileged position created in it for the British Electricity Authority and the National Coal Board. It is particularly ironical to one coming from Wolverhampton to find that the British Electricity Authority are to be given exemption from this particular oblige-

tion; for it so happens that in Wolverhampton one of the greatest, if not the greatest, public nuisances and dangers to health arises from an installation of the British Electricity Authority. It is a cooling tower of that authority which, in most conditions of weather, drenches with a thin rain a considerable area of the borough of Wolverhampton, an area in which the houses, walls and streets are practically never dry.
Those of us who are interested in this problem were glad to learn some months ago from an announcement of the British Electricity Authority that these difficulties have been successfully combated in Darlington, and I suggest that, until the British Electricity Authority put their own house in order wherever they are operating these installations, they have no right to expect exemption, upon the grounds of being model undertakers, from conditions which are imposed upon private enterprise.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Williams: I want to draw the attention of the House to Clause 66 (1, e), in which the Corporation are given power by notice
to prohibit persons from entering upon or causing or permitting horses, cattle or vehicles to enter upon any such grass verge or garden.
This is really a Committee point, but, as one will not have the chance of bringing it up on the Committee stage, I should like to direct the attention of the House to it. Why the Corporation should wish to prohibit persons or horses from entering upon grass verges, I do not know. It might be reasonable to keep horses off, if the grass verges are mown or fenced off, or bedded with flowers, but in these days, when roads are very dangerous for any equestrian who wants to preserve his life, he likes to get on grass verges, but this, under the provisions of the Bill, the Corporation would have power to prohibit. Formerly, when Bills similar to this were brought before the House, such a Clause usually read:
grass verges mown or maintained by the Corporation in an ornamental condition.
It would be a great improvement to the Bill if this old wording were used in the present case, because this is a matter of general interest, not only to people who ride horses, but also to motorists, who would like to keep the horses on the verges.

7.7 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I should like to add to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), and to say that we reserve the right, in the case of any future Private Bills, to object to Clauses by which nationalised industries are given a privileged position. I should like, for myself, to reserve the right on Report stage, should this Bill emerge from the Committee with Clauses 87 and 89 still included in it, to move that they be deleted.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Snow: While I realise that the Opposition are using a Private Bill as a means for an attack on the nationalised industries, I am rather inclined to agree with what the hon. Gentleman said just now, except in connection with the inclusion of Clause 87 (12), which relates to railways, as I am advised that there are many precedents for it. In fact, under other Private Bills railways were excluded in a specific exemption. In the case of subsection 14, however, the British Electricity Authority are given exemption, and I am rather inclined to agree that this should be included in subsection (6), though I think that most of these points can be left for consideration by the Committee, and I am quite content that the Bill should be considered in detail by them.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1950–51

Orders of the Day — JOINT CONSULTATION IN INDUSTRY

Postponed proceeding resumed on Amendment to Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," which Amendment was to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
in the opinion of this House the fullest possible measure of voluntary co-operation

between management and workpeople is essential if productivity is to be increased and good industrial relations maintained as the national interest requires, and this House urges the Government to continue its efforts through the national organisations of employers, and workers to encourage the practice of joint consultation on matters of common interest to management and workpeople in the factory and workshop and the development of appropriate joint consultative machinery.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Ian Orr-Ewing: When we interrupted our proceedings to deal with other Business, I was addressing my remarks very largely towards the observations of the hon. Member for Rotherham who unfortunately has been deterred by other Business from remaining in his place, and therefore I must turn to the points raised in one of the most interesting speeches of the whole afternoon, that which we heard from the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Gunter).
The hon. Gentleman voiced another form of suspicion which can do much to destroy the valuable work of joint consultation—namely, the suspicion that if steps are taken jointly to increase the rate of productivity, the job will come to an end all too quickly and the workers themselves become redundant. The hon. Member suggested—and I do not think he exaggerated the existence of such fears—that these apprehensions were holding back representatives of the workers from, taking a more active part in joint consultative bodies.
I should have thought that with what one might call the slightest amount of education and help from the unions themselves, such fears could be overcome. I rather agreed with what was said by the hon. Member for Rotherham, and I do not think that anything in the nature of a "pep" talk from an employer is going to remove that fear. I believe it would be much more helpful if, as was suggested, a certain amount of work of an educational character were carried out by the unions themselves in order to dispel that sort of fear. After all, once the committee—whatever name is given to it—is set up, and if it is a practical one, it is exactly issues of this sort which will come before it.
For some 25 years, long before the idea became fashionable, I played some part in joint consultative committees in industry. It is exactly those sorts of points and difficulties which can be explained in that way, and the facts put before both sides and laid openly on the table. Very often, indeed, suggestions come from most unexpected quarters and help to deal, for instance, with the very unpleasant business of redundancy or the shifting of people from one shop to another and so on. I believe it is only when such matters are openly discussed in joint consultative committees that those committees really reach their full value.
The very serious question which was posed of how far a joint consultative committee has the right to go is obviously a problem which we must face. I agree that such committees should go as far as they possibly can in probing into the interests of the firm. How far does that mean? I believe it is of interest to all those engaged in management and the workers to know what for instance is the effect of devaluation in relation to the obtaining of export orders. It is up to managements to disclose in the factory that other firms have possibly quoted better prices, and that an order has been refused or passed over, because it is when we are up against the effect of competition that all sides of a firm put their heads together and say, "We must do something about this and in some way reduce our costs." It is only by bringing people up against practical difficulties of that nature that we shall get a really practical approach to the problems confronting firms, which is so necessary if these joint consultative committees are to be of any value at all.
It has been said several times already this afternoon that joint consultation really existed at the beginning of the build-up of our industries in this country, and that we are now coming back into the era when no such system existed and, because it was not there, we rather tended to go back. I believe that we can revitalise and re-interest in a human way all those engaged in industry, so that we can go forward as a team.
There is another reason for great urgency in encouraging these committees and in seeing that they are practical bodies. One sees in the vast field of

engineering—which in all its aspects covers a tremendous proportion of the total industry of this country—something very remarkable which has been taking place for the last 10 or 15 years. It is that the skill in the engineering works is being concentrated more and more at the two extreme ends of production. A tremendous amount of skill goes into preproduction methods and into the tool room, but the amount of skill now necessary at the bench and on the machine is nothing like what it used to be. A greater amount of skill is demanded at the end of the production line on assembly, because skill in industry tends to be concentrated more and more at the beginning and at the end.
The effect of that is going to be very serious unless we keep those who require less skill very strongly in the picture. Once they get the feeling that they do not matter quite so much, and that all the attention is being paid to either one end or the other, we shall be in a very unhealthy position. Therefore, it is important that that aspect should be carefully studied, and that fair representation should be guaranteed to every section of productivity in any works where joint consultation takes place.
I have only one further remark to make, because so much has already been so admirably said from both sides on the subject. First, I do not believe that on these committees we can think solely and simply of production problems in the mechanical sense. I believe that far more could be done through those committees—in the first instance and not at the end of the story—talking about the finished product. It is an extraordinary thing, but as one goes round the country visiting different firms one finds how very few people ever see the finished product at all. What an awful mistake that is. What an awful mistake it is that where the little piece goes is not pointed out and explained, so that the actual individual responsible for its manufacture finds himself, as it were, in the machine and in his part of it. If that sort of thing is properly dealt with, what a tremendous difference it makes.
It is to problems of this sort that I think joint consultative bodies should pay a great deal more attention. They should bring the product right back on to the bench in its finished form, and


show where that hit of life which a man has put into his work fits into a machine which may be travelling right across the world and earning us valuable dollars, or otherwise helping us to live. The educational value of these committees to both sides of industry is realised more today than ever before. If we regard these committees as very largely educational bodies, whilst at the same time insisting that they must be absolutely practical and not just talking shops, we shall be building up a better, a more human and a more efficient standard in our industries in this country, and shall deserve very well of those who will take their place in the tremendous productive effort of this country, not only in the immediately coming months, but in later years.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Tomney: It is appropriate that the subject of today's Debate has followed so closely on the subject of yesterday's Debate, because the two, taken together, can provide us with an answer to most of our industrial problems. The industrial might of England was, I believe, built up on the capacity to produce capital equipment, and it is rather paradoxical to find, for instance, that the development areas, which were discussed yesterday, are also in close proximity to those areas which have always manufactured and developed capital goods. I believe that the first call upon the industry of our country will be upon its capacity to recapture its markets in capital goods. By so doing, we shall be able to build up permanent markets wherever we send our goods, and maintain our system of imports and re-exports.
I wish to deal, briefly, with the position of joint production committees as they affect chiefly the Engineering and Allied Employers' Federation. The whole range of industries covered by the Federation constitutes that portion of industry which will be in direct competition with other industries throughout the world. It is essential that the wheels should run as smoothly as possible in these industries. It is no surprise to me to find that joint production committees, as such, are becoming fewer in these industries. There is a reason for it, which I will explain later.
I want to deal, first, with the huge impetus given to and the mushroom development of joint production committees

during the war years. There was a great drive for munitions, and, in all factories directly connected with munitions and instruments of war, production committees were most effective. Provisions relating to payment of wages and bonuses and the provision of welfare amenities were more elastic, perhaps, in those industries than in the older established light industries and in the engineering industries. The influence of the production committees has seriously declined in these industries since the cessation of hostilities. That decline has been felt throughout the whole range of the engineering industry. The reason for it was that the trade union movement in the engineering industry has always been firmly established and the shop stewards' committees and the joint shop stewards' committees have been something distinct and separate from the joint consultative production committees.
I believe it was in 1941, when the then Minister of Labour first instituted joint production committees, that the established shop stewards' committees gave them careful consideration. They decided to take part in them chiefly as a means of furthering the war effort. A great amount of good work was done, but eventually we found that they were coming to a full stop at the very time when they were just becoming really efficient and really sharing in the functions of management. At the end of the war those committees were told, in no uncertain terms, that management was the function of management and that they must always work within their terms of reference, which were strictly that they were advisory and consultative committees. That was the position, although all people engaged in industry today are not so engaged solely from the personal point of view but chiefly from the point of view that industry matters not only to the owners but to the workpeople, too. It is our life and our future.
We therefore sought executive powers in industry for the joint consultative production committees. They were not forthcoming. That is where this process has broken down. The shop stewards' committees contended that they had men of ability within their ranks who were capable of taking executive decisions and carrying those decisions through to the workers to final completion. We split


upon the demand for the production of the order books and the account books, the policy on profits and the programme of capital investment. That is where we parted company. I maintain that the difficulties we shall encounter in world trade will be of such a character that, whether we do it now or in the future, we shall have to get together on the basis of the fullest co-operation. We shall have to put the cards really on the table with regard to every aspect of industry, including profits and the distribution of profits.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) is concerned with an industry which, I think, has always had 100 per cent. trade union membership. It has always paid the highest wages but even in his industry there has never been a joint development or consultative council on the lines I visualise. This industry has tremendous potentialities. I refer chiefly to its photogravure side. I believe that on this side we can give a lead and a beating to the Americans, but we have not the same markets as the Americans. It is on those kinds of things that we ought to have a development council, as distinct from the father of the chapel, day-to-day trade union procedure of the factory.
I want to join issue with the right hon. Gentleman on one point. I believe he mentioned that he was aware of some disruptive elements in industry which, from time to time, caused a certain amount of trouble by their tactics. I can assure him, in association with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), that from that point of view these elements are practically non-existent. The good, solid trade unionists in industry have seen just where these elements were leading them and have decided to dispense with them in no uncertain manner.
This Debate has followed lines of "sweet reasonableness." We are all concerned with the future of our country. All sides of industry should make a real effort to get down to this problem. We can only do it by extending executive powers to the workers' representatives. If we do that, we shall begin to solve the problems associated with increased productivity and the maintenance of good industrial relations.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: It is most encouraging to find the large amount of common ground disclosed on this most important subject today. I do not think I ever remember a Debate in which so many hon. Members from both sides of the House have sung their little songs in more pleasant harmony. I believe there was never a time when industrial relations in this country were better than they are at present. I believe, too, that progress has been made in this matter of joint consultation, even in the last few years. I know some of the seed has fallen on barren ground, but, on the other hand, some has come up and is really getting its roots in.
There are today many factors bearing on our economic recovery that are outside our control. Here is one right within our control. The question is whether we are doing everything we can to help things forward. The question of industrial relations is important for two reasons. The first is that if we want the greatest possible efficiency and productivity—and, of course, we do—then we must create conditions in which the human beings engaged in industry will give of their best. Industry, after all, is, in its most important sense, an enormous conglomeration of human beings. Secondly, there is the aspect of the happiness of the individual working in industry. Even with shorter hours and longer holidays we are all destined to spend more of our lives at work than anywhere else. Therefore, it is important to kill the notion that work must be drudgery. That is a defeatist attitude, and I ant sure that if everything we can do is done to increase interest and pride in the job, there is no earthly reason why that notion should persist.
We all realise the importance of productivity, but I feel that there is a special responsibility on us, as politicians, to say that we really want this scheme to succeed. We all have our own notions. Some of us believe in private enterprise: some of us believe in nationalisation, but we must face facts, and I think that the realistic and practical attitude which has been shown towards this question in this Debate is commendable. I would ask some hon. Members opposite to realise that private enterprise cannot function in an atmosphere of disparagement


and doubt, and if it is denied the incentives on which it is based. I want to make it clear that I am throwing no bricks at the Minister of Labour. With great respect, I look on him as an excellent joint consulter, if I may use that phrase. We on this side, when once an industry has been nationalised and where it is clearly impracticable to denationalise it, must concentrate our whole efforts on doing everything we can to ensure that industry works as efficiently and happily as possible.
There is the old question which, in the past, has so bedevilled the situation, of the division of the proceeds of industry, but I am quite sure that if we concentrate on doing all we can to see that the facts are known and understood that problem is soluble. When people understand the facts they are sensible; in general, one does get sensible solutions when once the facts are understood. I refer to such matters as: how capital is raised, what it is used for, the functions of profits and, perhaps more important, the functions of management. Personally, I believe that profit-sharing is a good way of identifying interests.
One hon. Member opposite, earlier in the Debate, implied that there was something antagonistic between co-partnership and the trades unions. In any properly designed co-partnership scheme that is most certainly not the case. On this question of management there is a tendency in industry for the growth of management as a sort of third partner, between labour and capital. That, I think, will go much further, and I think it is perhaps hopeful, because management in its intermediate position can look at some of these matters in a rather more objective way than either labour or capital could do. I hope everything will be done to support the newly-established British Institute of Management, because that has a useful contribution to make.
I want now to refer to my own rather limited experience of joint consultation; it is limited because it has covered only a comparatively few years, but I am a sincere believer in it. I believe it is a most important experiment in industrial democracy and, on the whole, I do not think we need feel in any way disappointed with its results. It is not, of course, a panacea for all troubles. It will not in itself supply the driving force necessary, but it is a valuable lubricant

to the whole industrial machine. It is really just a natural reflection of a sensible attitude. The old master-man relationship, which was all right in the last century, does not fit the situation today.
It is important that everybody in an organisation should be clear that there must always be order givers and order receivers, and the functions of the jobs of each should be clearly understood. Today, when people are given an order they like to be told why the order is given. The truth of that principle was discovered during the war. I think it was Field-Marshal Montgomery who always proceeded on the principle that he would rather run the risk of the enemy knowing of his plans than that his own troops should go into battle without knowing what was in his mind.
I am reminded of the old sergeant-major story. I have told the story before now, to show the wrong way of giving an order. An old sergeant-major was in charge of a medical inspection, and a man came to have his eyes examined. The sergeant-major said, "Go in the next room and take your clothes off." The man replied, "But I have only come to have my eyes seen to." The sergeant-major shouted, "That does not matter; go in the next room and take your clothes off." So the man went into the other room where he saw a little man sitting on a bench without any clothes on at all. Said the man, "The sergeant-major told me to come in here and take my clothes off, but I am only having my seyes seen to." The little man without any clothes on replied, "You are lucky, mate; I only came to deliver a telegram."
As far as my own experience goes, I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) said on this matter. First of all, consultation must be voluntary and spontaneous. Secondly, there must be absolute sincerity, and I agree that the initiative lies with the management. The management, in particular, must show that they really believe in this thing and mean to make it work. Then there must be no avoidable secrecy at all. Every bit of information that can be given should be given. Next, great patience is required. Sometimes people say that nothing except details are discussed. I agree that details are discussed, but I do not agree that in a well set up and well


run joint consultation scheme only details are considered. Sometimes, too, things which at first sight appear to be details turn out, later, to be very far from details. But details do come into the matter.
I remember a discussion in a factory, where there had been an epidemic of mice, on whether the factory cat was really beginning to lose its grip. After that question was disposed of the meeting turned to something of great importance. To show that we do deal with things of importance sometimes, I would like to mention that in a factory with which I am connected we called a special meeting of the works committee to meet the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour, and a very pleasant meeting it was. Another thing we sometimes hear is "This is only of interest to small numbers, to minorities." Do not let us make the mistake of under-estimating the value of catering for energetic and interested minorities, because they are often very important indeed. This is a thing of slow growth, but I believe it is beginning in many places to get its roots in and to prove of great value.
My own experience has taught me that joint consultation should be fostered most and first of all, at the lowest level. It is among the small intimate groups in the factories where the technique can best be learned, and from there it can easily be developed upwards. But it is quite difficult to make it go downwards if we start at the top and leave the lowest levels uncatered for. The results can be useful, especially in a two-way flow of information. I can only speak from the management point of view, but I do know that it can be most valuable and that one can learn from it a great deal that one could not learn in any other way.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Ian Orr-Ewing) in what he said about how often people in a factory do not know what is the finished product. In a factory in which I am interested we have tackled that problem by setting up something like a shop window inside the factory and in that window we put, every fortnight, a different product from the factory, describing all the departments which have contributed to it and how it has been made. I think that is one way in which this problem can be tackled.
This two-way flow of information can lead to a steady growth of confidence which, in turn, leads to the thing which we want above everything else—a sense of common purpose. Sometimes I wonder whether there is anything in this direction which we can learn from the United States. I have been reading with great interest the reports of the Anglo-American Productivity Council and I think that the work they have been doing has been most useful. I doubt, however, whether there is much we can learn from America on joint consultation. In this country we can feel proud that we have the steadiest, most responsible, and most competent manpower in the world. In America I think they have the most alert manpower in the world, so there is something which we can teach each other.
This may be too much of a generalisation, but, I think there is one thing we can learn from America: they believe that, generally, a profitable industry is the one which can pay the highest remuneration to those who work in it, can give the most secure employment and, in general, too, can give the best service to the consumer. The person who seeks to earn a profit or to obtain higher wages by improving his skill is not, therefore, a person to be disparaged.
I believe that if these are the things we go for, then we shall do more than we can do in any other way to overcome our present difficulties. The absolute essentials are, first, responsible, efficient, vigorous and fair-minded management. That is the most important thing of all in industry and, in turn, it depends on following the principle of promotion by merit and by nothing else. Second, we must have the right incentives at all levels. Third, we must have a very high standard of individual responsibility and self-discipline, again at all levels, because without that no business can produce efficient results. Next, we want more productivity-mindedness, and that is a difficult thing to learn; and, last—and here it is that joint consultation can help tremendously—a sense of common purpose.
If we can have these things everything will fall into shape; if we will forget our old squabbles and, with a sincere will, work together, we shall have the best industrial relations in the world and we then need have no fear for our industrial future, whatever difficulties lie ahead.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: I find myself in almost complete agreement with the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory) although, if I have the time, I may deal later with one or two of the points he made. In particular, I want to say that from experience I thoroughly agree with him in his view that the whole idea of industrial relationships is essentially a British product. It is better understood in this country than anywhere else in the world, as far as I know. I have tried to lecture on this subject in other countries, but I have found it most difficult to get them to understand how the two sides of industry can co-operate in some of these matters.
Indeed, so many expressions of unanimity have been uttered in this Debate today that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) must be a little worried as to whether he was justified in bringing this Amendment before the House, and as to whether he has been wasting our time. For my part I do not think he has been wasting our time because, although the wording of his Amendment might very well be accepted today without a Division and with a great deal of lip service from all parts of the House, I am bound to say that in my experience as a trade union official I am not quite so satisfied about the position as many hon. Members seem to be. There is no doubt at all that in many quarters a facade of these joint consultative committees is being set up which has no real substance behind it. In many cases the functions of the committees have been deliberately limited.
So far as the spirit behind this work is concerned, I still have painful recollections of a Debate in the last Parliament when a remark was made from the other side of the Chamber to the effect that any employer who took part in the work of a development council would be regarded as a Quisling. When we come to discuss this question we must not ignore the fact that such a spirit still exists. I hope that today's Debate, if it has done nothing else, will have led to a little more agreement on the subject and perhaps to fewer remarks being made of the kind which I have just quoted—remarks which could cause difficulties in the future.
This technique—one could almost call it a science—of industrial relationship has

been growing for a long time—far too long; and the process, as other hon. Members have said, is far too slow. It is 30 years since Mr. Whitley produced his reports giving the country a fairly complete scheme, a three-tiered structure with joint industrial councils at the national level, joint district committees and works committees. In those reports at that time he visualised the fairly rapid adoption of machinery of that kind. He was very optimistic as to its development and in its final report his Committee said:
We believe that when joint councils have gained confidence and experience in dealing with the urgent problems of the moment they will find their sphere of usefulness to be much wider than they themselves imagined at their first inception.
Unfortunately, that prophecy has not been borne out. There was a fairly rapid development during the war, but then there always is a rapid development of desirable things during a war, when people are prepared to waive their prejudices either from motives of patriotism or from motives of fear:
When the Devil was sick, the Devil a monk would be
When the Devil was well, the Devil a monk was he.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) pointed out that at the end of the war there was a very quick run down of the joint production committees which had been so successful during the war.
I turn now to the state of affairs at the present time. I want to ask the Minister whether he will not bring out an up-to-date edition of the industrial relations handbook. I have already asked for this by a Question in the House. The last edition was in 1944, and we ought to have a more up-to-date edition than that. That book shows that there is very great complexity in the machinery in the different industries. There is nothing against that, because British industry is like that. Every industry is different; its conditions and its history are different and, naturally, the machinery which has developed for the peculiar problems of particular industries varies from industry to industry. I have nothing against that at all, but we ought to have an up-to-date book so we may know exactly what the position is at the moment.
My experience in this field has been confined to the railway service. There,


there has been a change and a change for the better. One hon. Member on the other side of the House mentioned that when an industry is nationalised, things so from bad to worse—

Sir William Darling: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hynd: —so far as consultative machinery and the trade unions are concerned, and of course, we have die-hards like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, who can still say "Hear, hear." However, it is not really the case at all, because since the railways have been nationalised, although we had negotiating machinery and consultative councils on the railways before nationalisation, an even better scheme has been developed. It is a scheme at the national level, and at the station level; in which not only all the ordinary, normal functions of these committees but matters of management are dealt with, though that is not to say the workers manage the industry.

Mr. Charles Orr-Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? Will he tell me if he has read the Journal of the National Union of Railwaymen for January? Because there is an article there criticising very strongly the nationalisation picture.

Mr. Hynd: I have not read the Journal of the National Union of Railwaymen for January. I do not happen to be a member of that union. I am a member of the Railway Clerks Association. We regard ourselves as superior to the N.U.R.

Mr. Mikardo: Now my hon. Friend has started something.

Mr. Hynd: However, I do not want to be too controversial on that point.

Mr. Pannell: Will the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. Orr-Ewing) tell us what union he belongs to?

Mr. C. Orr-Ewing: Certainly, since the hon. Gentleman asks. I belong to the Association of Scientific Workers, and here is my card.

Mr. Diamond: For how long?

Mr. Hynd: After that very gallant recruiting effort by my hon. Friend, let

me continue by saying that whatever criticism may have appeared in the N.U.R. Journal, it is quite open to any union or body of workers to criticise the machinery, and I would not for a moment pretend to 'believe or to state that this machinery is perfect. Not at all. I could probably criticise it myself. However, the fact remains that for the first time there is a new development under which the railway unions are represented at the national level on a committee which deals with managerial functions. At the station level the workers are to be taken into consultation, and before a new policy is introduced they will be consulted about it, and if the management cannot see their way to adopt the suggestions of the workers they are given the reason why. That is a big step forward since nationalisation.
Hon. Members may also be interested, if they care to follow up this matter, if I refer them to the March edition, the current number, of the Ministry of Labour Gazette, where they will see an explanation of the new machinery in the gas industry. There, the scope, so far as I can see, is even wider than it is in the railway industry. It deals not only with the development of the industry, and wages, hours and working conditions, but goes on to deal with health, welfare, efficiency in the operation of the services, the settlement of disputes, inventions, improvements in machinery and methods, new entrants into the industry, apprenticeship and training, statistics and information, the arrangements of lectures and the holding of conferences, and all that sort of thing.

Squadron-Leader A. E. Cooper: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us whether it also deals with the question of profit sharing in the gas industry?

Mr. Hynd: No, it does not. That is a different matter altogether.

Squadron-Leader Cooper: No.

Mr. Hynd: It does not, because it is not related to it, that is all. I dare say the question of profit sharing could be discussed under one of those headings such as methods of working in the industry, or wages and conditions; but I am not prepared to give an interpretation of that at the moment. It is quite possible, but I am not concerned with it, because I do not think it is related to


the argument I am using. My point is that in the nationalised industries, far from their having been deterioration in this matter, there has been a very distinct improvement, to the advantage of the workers, and possibly to the advantage of the industries.
The chief difficulty in this question is, Where do we draw the line? Various speakers have skated round this point. How can the workers be taken into consultation and how far must managements manage? Now, a final answer to that question has still to be found. It is a big problem; it is occupying the minds of the trade unions and, I hope, of the employers' organisations at this moment, because the answer has got to be found to that question before long. It may only come by means of trial and error, Probably it will. We usually do get the answers to these questions by methods of that kind in this country. However, I hope a suitable answer will be found before very long because until it is found we cannot get the ideal form of consultative machinery that, I think, we all want.
If there is any fault at all in the machinery in the nationalised industries at present it is, as, I think, another hon. Member indicated, in the fact that there are too many of the managerial people who have been taken over from the former regime who have still got the old ideas and who have not yet learned how to act as managers of publicly owned industries. They still tend, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon) mentioned, to occupy the middle places—not at the top, but in the middle; and there we have people who still tend to treat the committees with suspicion and to use them to the minimum extent instead of to the maximum. That has to be broken down, and I believe that it is being broken down.
Lest it should be thought that I am too prejudiced in regard to the nationalised industries I should like to pay a tribute to a scheme that I came across in private industry. That was in Vauxhall Motors at Luton, where they have an excellent scheme of joint consultation which I think ought to be a model to many other employers in this country.
With regard to the scope of the machinery. Several hon. Members have already talked about making the com-

mittees really responsible—not just using them for all the awkward questions or minor matters of welfare. If they are given real responsibility I think that in most cases they will rise to the occasion.

Mr. Osborne: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what he means by "real responsibility," if they are not to take over the functions of management?

Mr. Hynd: Yes. I meant much more important things than canteen questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Let me give an example from practical experience in London Transport. There they draw out lines of promotion—things of that kind, giving them a large amount of responsibility. That is just the first example coming to my mind. No doubt many other and better examples could be quoted. We pat ourselves on the back about the development of this machinery, but I think there is another side to the medal.
Despite the fact that it is 30 years since Whitley brought out his report and it is 20 years since the T.U.C. urged closer consultation, which they followed up with the Turner-Mond talks in 1928, even today we have in certain sections of industry die-hard employers who will just not face up to this matter. I am going to give an example, which was the subject of a Question to the Minister of Labour the other day about a bank, the Banque Belge pour I'Etranger where they have 70 per cent. of the staff—

Sir W. Darling: What is the total number employed? Less than 100?

Mr. Hynd: Not at all. The hon. Member is wrong in his facts.

Mr. Diamond: As usual.

Mr. Hynd: As usual. I have not got the figure with me, but speaking from memory I think it is something like 160. Anyway, the fact is that they have some 70 per cent. of the staff in membership, and yet the bank is refusing point-blank to give them anything like trade union recognition. What this bank is doing is what so many employers have been doing—and this is what we in the trade union movement complain about bitterly—is setting up what we call a "house committee"—by-passing the trade union movement and getting people inside the office or the factory to mobilise under the wing of the boss. Now that is not proper


trade union recognition; it is not bona fide consultation, and it is quite wrong of hon. Members opposite to support that kind of thing, if they do. It is no good paying tribute to the disciplined and well-balanced trade unions on the one hand, and undermining their position by this kind of thing on the other. That is both wrong and dangerous.
I thoroughly agreed with the right hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) when he drew attention to the phrase "voluntary co-operation" in the Amendment. Although I have mentioned the example of this bank, it does not mean that I am asking the Minister to impose anything compulsorily, because that would be futile. However, there is no doubt that the Minister can use a great deal of influence, and public opinion can be brought to bear against employers of that kind, to ensure that they back up the more enlightened employers and give the trade union recognition to which their staff are entitled.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) when he suggests that one of the essentials for such a committee is that the factory manager must always be in the chair. I suggest that it would be better for the chair to be occupied alternately by a representative of the management and a representative of the workers, as is done in certain industries. I believe that in that way much smoother working can be effected, and there would be much better relations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Gunter) made some remarks with which to my regret, I find myself in considerable disagreement. I am sorry he is not here when I say this, but he went out of his way to lecture the trade unions, and said they ought to educate their officials more in this matter; that they ought to polish up their machinery and deal with the whole subject in a much more efficient way. That is all very well so far as it goes, but the implication is that the stumbling block is always the trade union, which is certainly not the case. I believe that in nearly every case where those difficulties arise it is the workers who are putting on the pressure and the management who are putting up the opposition. If there is to be education of trade union officials, then I respectfully suggest that there is at least as much justification for education of

managerial representatives in the science of industrial relations. In saying "at least as much justification," I am putting it as mildly as I can. It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster said, that this is all the more necessary because there will be further developments in the science of industrial relations. There is a great future for it, and a great deal of study will have to be given to it if we are to achieve the proper results.
In my opinion, the key to the whole matter, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), is the question: What is the purpose of setting up such a committee? That is the question to which we ought to apply ourselves. I would say that on the part of the management the purpose is to have better relationships with the workers, more efficiency, and to avoid trouble at the source. On the part of the workers, the reason for being on such committees is to have a greater say in their industry, to help in its efficiency, to see that they get a proper return for their labour, and also to avoid industrial disputes. Workers do not want industrial disputes; they try to avoid them as far as possible, and this is one of the best ways of doing so. But there is a further purpose. In the past the worker has too often been regarded as a number on the books. Too often have we seen the notice at the factory gate "No hands wanted" or "Hands wanted" as the case may be—although the latter much less frequently. The word "hands" embodies a conception of the workers which has been a great irritant in industrial relationships. If we get the joint consultation that we desire we can get away from that conception altogether and make the worker feel that he is a self-respecting human being.
It has also been discovered, by both sides I believe, that when there is proper consultation it is of real benefit to them. The enlightened employer has found that it has paid him to go to a lot of trouble to get the right kind of consultation. Many employers have found that the workers who do the job do know something about it; that they have brains as well as hands; and the employer has benefited accordingly. On the other side the workers have discovered that the employer has some justification when he talks about financial difficulties, supply


difficulties, or bottlenecks of various kinds. Accordingly, both sides have benefited. It will be a good investment for my right hon. Friend if he spends more on the development of joint consultative machinery. It will be an investment which will pay handsome dividends in the form of fewer industrial disputes. Industrial disputes are very expensive to the nation's economy, and it will be beneficial economically to spend a little more money on developing industrial relationships, thereby avoiding a tremendous amount of industrial trouble.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Charles Orr-Ewing: I should like to follow up the remarks of the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd), who had to take a foreign bank as an example of the employer he had in mind.

Mr. H. Hynd: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? Although the bank has a foreign name, it is British-controlled.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I would say further that it has a very small number of employees. I would support my hon. Friend when he says the number is under 100.

Mr. Mikardo: That does not put it right.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I understand that although it has the name of a Belgian bank, it is the British branch of that Belgian bank. I apologise if I misrepresented the hon. Gentleman.
I shall not keep the House long, and I want to draw attention quite briefly to three matters. We have had from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory) a reference—with which I am sure hon. Members on both sides will agree—to the relative smoothness of production which has occurred since 1945. We are now coming to the end of that period. It has been relatively easy to have pleasant conditions and understanding between management and men in the conditions which have existed in the postwar period, but there are three valid reasons why those conditions are now coming to an end.
First, we have the impact of the buyers' market and the free winds of competition which will blow as a result. Secondly, we have the need to substitute materials, probably from non-dollar sources, as we

try to close the dollar gap. Thirdly, I have no doubt that we shall see an extension of the principle under the Atlantic Pact whereby different Powers accept responsibilities for different portions of the defence programme. We have already seen a case in this country where contracts were cancelled and the Americans undertook to supply B29s.
We are coming to a period between now and 1952—and I am sure that there can be no difference of opinion on this matter—when we may have interruptions in the smoothness of production. Surely, that is the exact period when the troublemakers—I refer, in particular, to the Communist Party—will seize on the difficulties of industrial firms to make trouble. I suggest that if we do not bring in joint consultation as rapidly as possible before this state of affairs develops, there will be really serious trouble and the productivity which we are all anxious to see increased more and more will fall right away as the result of Communist efforts. The sooner we get our joint production councils going in the most efficient manner, the safer will be the future and the smoother will be the production which we all desire.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Hale: The tone of the House seems to be that there is a great feeling of agreement on this matter of joint consultation. It is not deliberately that I strike a note which is not actually in keeping with the tone of the Debate up to the moment. I believe that we are in great danger of overstressing the case of joint industrial consultation in this sense, that while it is a method of settling difficulties within industry and has served a very useful purpose up to now, we would be wise to understand that every employer who has introduced this method into his works does not necessarily subscribe voluntarily to the view that joint consultation is the best way of running his industry. It is rather that many employers bow to the weight of opinion. I think that those people are the people who are dangerous to the continuance of this method.
I come from an engineering industry where, during the war years at any rate, joint consultation did work to the benefit of both sides of the industry. Since the war, I have entered another field of the


engineering industry, and I think that very often the employer is only prepared to discuss matters which are of trivial importance to the workers, matters which very often are an insult to the intelligence of educated men within the industry.
Let us realise that in these days the major part of the adult workers in an engineering establishment are educated almost up to the same level as the manager. Very often the manager has been drawn from the ranks, not because of superior technical knowledge but because he has a personality which enables him to run the men in a way which causes the least antagonism. I have found, as the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) said, that often when we get round the table in joint consultation, the only matter that the management are prepared to discuss is whether the tea is sweet enough or whether some other trivial matter of that character is pleasing the rank and file in the workshop.
Surely we have reached a stage in our industrial development when we can go far beyond that in this matter of joint consultation. I agree with many hon. Members opposite that it would be dangerous if we abused the powers of the trade unions by these joint committees. I am one of the people who do not wish to usurp the functions of the management side. I have always believed in the rate for the job, and if the manager gets paid for it, he is going to do his job. That does not mean that I am not prepared, and that people like myself in industry are not prepared, to co-operate with the management to the joint benefit of the industry and of the country as a whole.
The firm which I recently worked for had developed this consultation to something of a fine art. I have seen in that factory great changes since the management began to yield a little to the pressure put upon them from the workers' side. As has been said in this Debate, suspicion often exists on both sides when this matter of joint consultation is first introduced into industry. The manager feels that these fellows are going to run the place for him, and the workers feel that they are going to be used for the more unsavoury functions of management. There is little doubt that, if taken into the confidence of the managers, the

workers are prepared to make sacrifices so that their industry may survive in these difficult times.
It may be, and it most probably is, the fact that industry in this country will have to face far greater competition in the days to come than it is experiencing at the moment. The workers realise that their future is bound up with a particular industry just as is that of the employers. I feel that together they can make real strides in putting their respective industries in a position to compete when the heat is turned on in the competitive field. But what are the rewards going to be? It is quite true that, however much we may have been educated and however much we may have learned from industry, there is in the best of us something of the materialist. We are all prepared in times of crisis to give service to our country but that does not, or should not, blind us to the fact that most people on both sides of industry desire, and are determined to have, material reward for their services. Joint consultation can go a long way towards solving that problem, too.
I recollect sitting in a joint industrial council where the workers in a particular industry complained—and this is not a rare complaint in these days—about the huge, profits being made out of their industry. They determined that these profits were being made largely at the expense of the people employed in that industry. What actually happened was that they had gone to a shop and seen on sale one of the commodities their factory produced. By adding two and two together, they found that that commodity cost only 1s. 1½d. to manufacture; in fact, it turned out later that the management sold to the distribution side of the industry for 1s. 1½d., and the workers got themselves into a great state of agitation because they were asked to pay 9s. in the shop for the same product which had left their hands at so reasonable a price.
I think that in matters such as that, there is a large field in which, by consulting round the table, management and workers can find out what is in each other's minds. I am convinced that as soon as they find out what is in other's minds, neither side will not take on the rather threatening attitude which they sometimes appear to adopt. The hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) belongs to a branch of industry which,


judging from what he said this afternoon, has made strides in this direction of joint consultation. Perhaps he falls into the same error as many of us by thinking that just because he behaves in a particular fashion towards his industry, so does everyone else. That, of course, is not true.
Joint consultation can be brought into no greater discredit than by being operated by people who do not really believe in it. The Minister would do well to consider, even if it means expenditure, what steps he can take to further this method of settling differences within industry. I am not being ungrateful when I say that the possibilities of this method have not yet been reached. Although this is something that was introduced some 30 years ago, it is still in its infancy. If the employer's side of industry adopt the same attitude as Members opposite have shown today towards this question, and the workers take the same view as has been expressed from this side of the House, I feel sure that we shall go a long way towards running industry in a model way.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Drayson: I have been particularly struck by the tone of this Debate. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the question of profits in industry at the present time. I agree that a great deal of education of trade union officials and their members is required on this matter. As I have said before in this House, it is the job and responsibility of all trade union officials to be able to understand a company's balance-sheet, so that they can go through it with the management and ask for any elucidation on points that puzzle them. It has been suggested that some of these matters are secret, but the bulk of industry is run at present by public companies which publish their balance-sheets annually, either as a balance-sheet or in the financial journals. It is only a small section of industry that is operated by private concerns.

Mr. Diamond: Has the hon. Member ever taken the trouble to see how much information is published in these public company balance-sheets, particularly in regard to the trading accounts in which the workers are interested, or will he accept it from me that in most cases the amount of information is nil?

Mr. Drayson: I would not agree with that at all. It is clearly laid down under the Companies Act what information shall be given, and as a result of the Cohen Report, far greater information is being given now that in years gone by. It is only on the details on the trading side, which might be of use to competitors, that managements exercise discretion in the amount of information they are able to give to their employees. By all means let questions be asked if the matter is being considered under joint consultation, but in the interests of individual firms there must be items which cannot be disclosed by the management who are responsible. After all, if a company is not doing very well it might be very useful information for a competitor to have.
Few people realise that the largest shareholder and participant in any business is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who takes not only 9s. in the pound, but an additional 2s. as Profits Tax and a further amount by way of a distributed profits tax if the company pays a dividend. It must be borne in mind, in going through the earnings of a company, that reserves have to be built up for a rainy day and that a large amount is necessary for re-equipment. Trade unionists have a tremendous responsibility in this respect.
Anyone who is engaged in industry and employs a few hundred people, cannot help feeling that he has a great responsibility, apart from the responsibility to the shareholders who have financed the industry, towards those who are working in the industry. The managements feel they have a responsibility to see that the industry is kept on a profitable basis, and that the livelihood of the workers is secured. The trade unionist has an even greater responsibility. Whereas management may be responsible for a few hundred workers, the officials of the trade unions are responsible for the wellbeing of literally millions of people engaged in industry. Therefore, trade union officials should not only understand production problems, but also the financial matters with which companies are concerned.
Wages have been repeatedly referred to in this Debate. I should like to say how distressing it is to see unions putting forward claims for increased wages which


they say will come out of profits, when they know perfectly well that the profits are not there. They can perfectly well ascertain what are the profits of a particular industry.

Mr. Diamond: How?

Mr. Drayson: A little research will reveal the figures If the figures are not available, any intelligent person can probably fill in the gaps. One of the functions of accountants and financial experts is to assess these matters; by a little intelligent deduction they can arrive at a reasonable estimate of what is going on. Let us take the claim which is being put forward in the ship-building industry at present. I imagine that there are 600,000 people employed in the industry. They are asking for an increase of £1 a week, making a total increase of £30 million a year. It is possible that the profits of the shipbuilding industry, after allowing for replacements, depreciation and taxation, are between £3 million to £5 million.

Mr. Mulley: Does the hon. Member realise that taxation is only on realised profits, and that if greater wages are paid, the profits will not be liable to so much taxation—since the profits will be smaller?

Mr. Drayson: I hope the hon. Member will put that point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope he will ask him what he proposes to do to maintain his revenue if the profits of industry disappear. It will mean that he cannot rely on producing millions of pounds to keep the Social Services and the other benefits going.
The point I want to emphasise is that I wish that the unions would accept responsibility for going thoroughly into this matter, for understanding what they are talking about, for deciding what is a reasonable profit and what is an excessive profit. Nobody on this side of the House is in favour of excessive profits. Let us at least decide what is a reasonable figure and see what can be achieved, and not present claims which place too great a strain on industry so that it cannot either build up the reserves which it needs for difficult times or re-equip itself to compete with more up-to-date countries like America.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Mulley: At this late hour I will not follow the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) in his revelations in accountancy, desirable though such a course may be. I support the Amendment because I have had the privilege of seeing joint consultation in practice and of attending works committees in a considerable number of firms and in various industries. There is, clearly, today a great divergence in both the practice and achievement of firms, not only in different industries, but between different firms within the same industry. While we can talk tonight only in general terms and not go into the details of individual firms, I should like to point out that there is no type or model of joint consultation which is suitable for all types and sizes of firm.
In this connection I am reminded of the experience of an American trade unionist in Japan, immediately after the war. The Japanese established trade unions on Western models and soon there were a great number of strikes. One day a Japanese employer came to the trade union adviser and said, "I cannot tolerate the situation any longer. My men constantly shout rude names at me"—a great indignity to a Japanese employer—"as I walk down the street." He said, "They are on strike, but I do not mind that. They get their wages every week and I have provided a room for the strike committee, but now they are even complaining of the free food I send them every day to their canteen." Clearly, there is a difficulty if one tries to superimpose on social and economic conditions a structure which is not suitable. We must be careful, therefore, about saying that there is a particular pattern of joint consultation which will serve all purposes.
Before coming to the discussion of general principles we should know quite clearly what are the objectives of joint consultation. One can only give a personal opinion about this matter. I believe in joint consultation, on the short-term basis, at any rate, for two reasons: first, because it will, I believe, enhance the status of the worker, and secondly, because it can lead to increased production and industrial efficiency, which we need so desperately today.
In this Debate the difference underlying the unanimity which we have seen from


both sides of the House is that we on this side believe that we must first enhance the status of the worker and give him a participation in the decisions that govern his working life, as a result of which increased productivity will follow. Hon. Members opposite are stressing the scientific management attitude, which is putting the matter the other way round.

Mr. McCorquodale: I do not believe that the hon. Member wishes to misrepresent what has been said from this side. I was actually the first to refer to the status of the worker, quoting from the Industrial Charter.

Mr. Mulley: I was not referring to the right hon. Gentleman particularly, but the terms "man management" and "smoothness of industrial relations" have been constantly used from the benches opposite and I am sure he will not take responsibility for everything said on that side of the House.
We need mass production today, but that mass production must mean a decline in craftsmanship and the pride and interest in work which went with it. We have a technical solution, but not yet a human solution to this problem. Many workers are today no more than the cogs in the machines they operate. I think it a distressing fact that men and women who, in private life, are responsible citizens and who, outside the factory, enjoy full political rights and, maybe, have great responsibilities, at work, where they spend a great portion of their lives, are no more than a mere clock number. While full employment has done much to enhance the self-esteem of the worker, and he no longer fears the sack and its dire economic consequences as he used to, joint consultation can go further in raising the status of workers in industry.
I also believe that it can solve, or contribute to the solution of, the new problems in industrial relations that are inevitable under full employment. It may be said that many workers do not want responsibility and that they are quite content with the monotony of mass production. While I will not dispute that, there is in every factory and working group some people who have something to contribute. Those people will become the natural leaders of that group and

joint consultation can not only utilise their contribution but enable them to change the attitude of the workers in the group, who may not themselves be so interested in industrial democracy.
What is the effect of joint consultation on production? I believe that the mere opportunity to participate in, or at any rate to understand the reasons for, decisions in the factory will of itself bring increased output. In the famous Hawthorne experiment, the simple fact that the girls who were in the experiment were the centre of interest and the centre of importance in the factory was sufficient to increase output, despite a deliberate worsening of the environmental conditions in which they worked. The atmosphere or climate of work is an important factor in increased productivity. Statistically, it is difficult to prove, because one cannot separate the factor of joint consultation from the many other factors involved in the total situation, but it has been given to me by managers of firms where there is very good joint consultation that over the years increases of 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. in output have been built up by joint consultation.
From personal observation I have noted that in one or two factories where joint consultation is particularly good the workers work until the end of the working day, whereas in many cases effective work ends 10 or 15 minutes before the end of the working day. I have also noted that in some factories where joint consultation is a success the works director is in the factory at seven o'clock in the morning and not, as is often the case, at nine or 10 o'clock. Frequently, there is improvement in labour turnover figures in factories where joint consultation is successful and, by suggestion schemes, the whole creative ability of the organisation is harnessed to production. In some cases very striking results have been achieved. What I think is equally important is that the opportunity of participation given to workers enables them to understand managerial methods and fits them for positions of greater responsibility.
One can sum up the effect of joint consultation on production by a simple example. A gang of men was sent to dig holes in the ground. When they


reached a certain depth someone came along, had a look and told them to fill the hole again and dig somewhere else. As the afternoon went on their rate of digging became slower and slower, and one man, bolder than the rest, asked what the object of the exercise was. He was told, "We are looking for some buried treasure in this piece of waste land." With that knowledge their output went up considerably. That is an extreme example, but I am sure that there are thousands of people working in industry today who do not know what contribution they are making to the finished product of the factory, and many who do not even know what the finished product is.
I am sorry I have spoken for so long upon one aspect, and in turning to general principles I will be brief. I believe that to set up a committee alone is to do nothing. It is no use having a committee unless it is backed by the good will and the desire of both sides to make it work. While the committee system is necessary in large works the fact of having a joint production committee or a works committee does not mean that there is joint consultation. If joint consultation is being started let there be joint consultation about the method of joint consultation there is to be. I would emphasise that. If a committee is imposed by national agreement, or by the employers or even by the trade unions, it will not necessarily succeed.
Among the conditions for success I would suggest, first, that before there is joint consultation between management and men there must be an effective system of consultation within the ranks of management itself. There must be the same channel of communication between the top of the management structure and the junior executive as is desired between management and workers. As other hon. Members have said, particular attention needs to be paid to the foreman, who is in a particularly difficult situation in industry today. He is too often between the upper grindstone of higher authority and the lower grindstone of enforcing discipline. I feel sure that to get an effective organisation there must be some way of fitting the foreman into the picture so that he does not learn of management decisions from members of the joint consultation committee who are probably

people working under him on the floor of the shop.
Second, I would stress the necessity, if there is to be joint consultation, of bringing all workers in the organisation into the system—clerks administrative workers, scientific workers. Everyone who is in the organisation should be represented somewhere in the set-up. Third, and I think that this is perhaps the key point, no topic should be barred. That includes accounts and profits, and what is more important than the mere availability of the accounts is that questions on the accounts and profits should not only be put but answered.
I recall a managing director, who had great success in this field, saying that the very first question put to him was, "What is your salary?" He knew perfectly well that the success or failure of the system depended on a straight and truthful answer; and I believe that no topic should be barred in the discussions at joint consultation committees.
Fourth, I believe that the agenda must be interesting and varied. It is the responsibility of the management to provide that agenda. The representatives of the workers cannot put down items involving a change of company policy, or the introduction of new machinery, because they do not know about that until it happens. It is up to the management to put down items ahead of the actual contemplated date of change, so that discussion can take place in advance. I am sure that absenteeism and complaints about cold tea—two points from the two sides which are inevitably on the agenda of unsuccessful committees—is in itself responsible for the lack of interest and the breakdown of those committees. Very often there are committees dealing very successfully with the problem of redundancy and the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), quoted an example from the March edition of "Business." I think hon. Members will be interested to know that the firm in question was the firm for which the late Mr. Cobb was responsible. In mourning his tragic death we may also hope that that experiment will continue as a monument to his work and interest in this subject.
Fifth, I would like to see, a general rule, the managing director, the "boss" in the eyes of the ordinary worker,


present at meetings of the committee. I do not think it matters whether he is in the chair or not, but there must be someone present who can, if necessary, make speedy decisions and give a rapid answer. Sixth, as hon. Members have said, there must be no attempt to substitute joint consultation for trade unionism. I consider that the reason why the Whitley committees in the past did not succeed was very largely because in many cases they were used by employers as a substitute for trade unionism, by company unions and similar devices. As a final general principle I would suggest that there must be an adequate method of information or reporting back, so that every worker in the factory, if he wishes, can find out what goes on in the factory committees which comprise joint consultation. I believe that for successful working there must be a great education both of management and of men.
I would support my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Gunter) in his plea to trade unions to spend more money on education and research. Probably the Minister could help in this direction. He provides an excellent advisory service to those firms interested in setting up joint consultation, but I wonder if he would consider the possibility of providing a simple course on the objects of joint consultation, on the same lines as his excellent course on Training Within Industry. I know that would be appreciated by many people who are working in this field. I think, also, that there should be more courses in the technical colleges which would enable workers to learn the rudiments of industrial administration, and, what is equally or perhaps more important, courses which would enable the management to learn the rudiments of industrial relations and trade union structure.
Pioneer work in this direction has been done by the Industrial Administration Department of the Birmingham Technical College, and elsewhere, and I hope that employers, trade unions and the Minister will encourage the provision of these courses. A lot could be done to improve the publicity of successful joint consultation systems, to arrange exchange visits between firms for a pooling of ideas and to collate information; and I think the Minister could help in this direction. The Human Factors Panel of the Lord President's Committee on Industrial

Productivity has been working for some time in this field, and I understand that soon it will be making its report. I hope that that kind of work will continue.
I believe that, given honest endeavour on both sides, joint consultation can achieve increased social status and increased productivity. It does pay. Managers have told me that, financially, they could not afford to be without joint consultation now they have got the system to work. For the workers it has meant more remuneration and, what is more important, a new interest and stature in their work. But it brings new responsibilities, both to management and to the trade union movement. These must be faced. It must be recognised that it is limited in purpose and, inevitably, slow in development. It is not, and it cannot be, a panacea for all industrial ills. It must take time to break down the frustration and suspicion which has grown up in industry over a great number of years. We cannot expect spectacular results in a short time. Indeed, unless there is patience and a desire to learn on both sides, especially on the part of management, we shall make no progress in this matter at all.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) was making his maiden speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If he had been, I was about to congratulate him on having the good fortune to deal with a subject which, obviously, he has studied deeply; but, all the same, I will congratulate him on talking a lot of good sense. I know that he talked a lot of good sense, because I agreed with a lot of what he said. We on this side of the House are very glad indeed that this subject has been raised, and we are very pleased to hear what a great wealth of support there is for the principle of co-partnership from the benches opposite.

Mr. Diamond: Nobody has said so.

Mr. Gammans: It often seems to us on this side of the House that hon. Gentlemen opposite are shooting at targets that no longer exist with smoothbore blunderbusses firing wet ammunition. But today we have had a great degree of unanimity, certainly on the problem that faces industry. I want to


introduce a controversial note, not in any bitter carping sense, because I think it is desirable that we should not only realise where we agree but also where we disagree.
I think we all agree on what is the problem that faces industry today. It was well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr), in a very agreeable maiden speech, when he said that what we were trying to do was to adjust the relationship between employer and employed in an age where, for good or for evil, large-scale production is now the rule rather than the exception. It is no good carping about that. For motor cars, textiles and shipbuilding, the large-scale unit of production has come to stay. It has raised our standard of living; but what a price we have had to pay for it. The price we have had to pay is the loss, very largely, of craftsmanship and the loss of human interest in creative work. I suppose it is true to say that, for many millions of our people, life in the full sense only starts when the factory gates shut.
The problem which faces all of us is how we are to humanise this civilisation. Here we come to a point of controversy. The Socialist Party have believed, I think sincerely, that one could humanise this civilisation by nationalization—or must I now call it socialisation? They really believed that men would find a new sense of social purpose in working for the State, and that service to the community would transcend in their minds any thought of gain. Nationalisation has been based on the fallacy that men will work hard without thought of reward, or fear of what happens to them if they do not, and also on the fallacy that the State has a soul which can appeal to a man's conscience.
We on this side of the House contend that nationalisation has failed, and, certainly, I think many hon. Members opposite, if they will not go as far as that, will at least agree that it has not lived up to expectations. We say that it has failed in what is, after all, the most vulnerable point from the aspect of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that is in human and labour relations. The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) waxed very eloquent about the effect of nationalisation on the railways, but one of my hon. Friends reminded him of what was written in the

"Railway Review" for January. I myself have discovered what was written in that magazine last October, when we were told this:
Never was there a time when discontent was so rampant as it is today on the railways. Never was there a time when lack of interest was so rife. The first and most important thing that is wrong is the gradual development of a soulless dehumanising and individuality-killing atmosphere that prevails all over the railway system in these days.
I do not think that anything we have said from this side of the House was ever as bad as that. I remember also what an hon. Member said about the effect of nationalisation on the workers in his constituency. If we want any further proof, we need only take note of the large number of unofficial strikes in the nationalised industries in the last two years.
Our contention is that the experiment into which hon. Gentlemen opposite entered with regard to labour relations when they put all their money on nationalisation has certainly not lived up to expectations. In this great experiment, the Socialists have acquired two curious allies—the trade unions and the co-operative societies. The reason why they are such curious allies is because nothing is more certain than that, if there were a completely Socialist State, both trade unionism and the co-operative movement would disappear. There would be no place for either of them in a completely Socialist State, and for that reason it is curious that the Socialist Party should have acquired these two allies. In many countries of the world, and in America, for example, trade unionism has not gone Socialist or even political. The American trade unions will not touch nationalisation with a barge pole.
It is our contention that a split between Socialism, on the one hand, and the trade unions and co-operatives societies, on the other, is absolutely inevitable. It certainly will not come from the trade unionists in this House. I admit that they have a vested interest in Socialism and in Socialist patronage. It will not come from here, but it will come from below in the movement. Indeed, I found in the recent General Election that nothing caused more anger at a meeting than to remind listeners that 11 trade union secretaries had got jobs in nationalised industries at salaries of £3,000 a year or more. I was not arguing whether they


were worth it or not—possibly they were—but I was saying that these men had abandoned the trade union movement that had put them into the picture. I am absolutely convinced that that split must come sooner or later.
On the other hand, our contention is that there is an alternative to nationalisation in labour relations and co-partnership. We claim that private enterprise can outbid the nationalised industries any day of the week, not only in service to the community, which it certainly can, but in labour relations. That is why I was glad that my hon. Friend who opened the Debate from this side of the House mentioned the Workers' Charter. I know it is the fashion of hon. Members opposite to deride the Workers' Charter of the Conservative Party, and I do not, in one sense, blame them, because it is good politics to sneer at what one fears in the programme of one's opponents.

Mr. Pannell: Will the hon. Gentleman please tell us whether the Leader of the Opposition has been converted to that view?

Mr. Gammans: I do not know whether I need waste any time answering a silly question like that, but if the hon. Gentleman would take the trouble to follow the course of Conservative politics during the last three years, he will realise that the Workers' Charter and the Industrial Charter have been accepted by the Conservative Party at more than one annual conference.
The point that I wish to put to hon. Members opposite and to the country generally is that we mean business over the Workers' Charter. That is a warning, not merely to hon. Members opposite, who quite rightly fear it, but is equally a warning to employers throughout the country. The bad employer, like the bad landlord, has every reason to fear a Conservative Government. In some ways, he has much more reason to fear a Conservative Government than a Socialist one, because a Socialist Government, by feather-bedding and quotas, have kept in being a number of inefficient businessmen who ought to have gone to the bankruptcy courts long ago.
What do we on this side of the House mean by co-partnership? One thing we mean, which has not been mentioned very

much in this Debate, is the question of breaking down the balance sheet. In one business with which I am concerned, that is something upon which I have always insisted. I was glad to see that in the case of Rugby Cement, which published its balance sheet two days ago they showed that the dividend paid to ordinary shareholders worked out at only 5½d. in every 20s. of turnover or one-third of a penny on every bag of cement. Tate and Lyle—who are so much liked by hon. Members opposite—showed that their profit was only 1/28th of a penny per pound of sugar.

Mr. Fernyhough: Do not those figures regarding Tate and Lyle also reveal that for every pound paid in wages, 3s. 4d. was paid to the shareholders?

Mr. Gammans: I am not certain, but I do not think so.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): In any event, I doubt whether there is any relevance to the Motion in either of those two contentions, and I hope the horn Gentleman will not pursue them.

Mr. Gammans: The point I am making is that, to our mind, the central factor of co-partnership is the breaking down of the balance sheet. I should like to give one example of a balance sheet last year which I happen to know about personally. It was shown, after all deductions had been made for raw materials and services, that on every 20s. which had gone to the human beings, as it were, as opposed to things, 19s. 3d. had gone in wages, one penny had gone to the directors, twopence to the shareholders, and the other sixpence to reserve.
That breaking down of the balance sheet, we contend, is essential if we are to get a proper sense of co-partnership. But it is not only that; it is the joint production councils which we on this side favour as much as do hon. Members opposite. They should not, in any sense, be bogus joint production councils, but organisations which make men realise that there are not really two sides to the table, but only one. To quote another personal example, I know of a case where a firm was offered an order at a cut price. They knew the competition was very severe, and they put it to the joint production council, "Shall we take that order or not? It means 5 per cent. extra production


from you. Will you give it, or will you turn it down?" When it was put like that, the men, of course, said "yes," and they fulfilled their promise both in the letter and the spirit.
But that is not the only side of joint consultation which we favour. We believe that there should be longer contracts of service for men who have worked for a firm for some considerable time. I think that the man who has worked for a firm for, say, 10 years should be put on at least a three months' contract of service. The man who has worked for 20 years ought to be put on at least a six months' contract of service. We agree there ought to be a legal contract of service for any man who is taken on by that firm. Needless to say we support superannuation schemes, profit-sharing schemes and things like helping people to build their own houses or to acquire them. Those are the sort of things which, in our contention, are necessary for a real co-partnership. It is our belief, and hon. Gentlemen opposite are quite entitled to hold the opposite view, that in those directions we can outbid nationalisation every day of the week.
I am quite convinced that the split over nationalisation will come—and to a very large extent it has come already—between skilled and unskilled labour. It is quite obvious that at the last election many millions of trade unionists voted for us. I certainly would not have got in unless many thousands had voted for me. That reveals a direct divergence in conception between our parties. We both believe there should be a welfare floor below which no man should fall by reason of sickness, old age or unemployment. We should like to see a slightly firmer floor than the present one which, in spite of American underpinning, tends to sag and to sink.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must forgive me, but he brings in a great number of quite irrelevant matters amongst some matters which are relevant.

Mr. Gammans: The Amendment is with regard to voluntary co-operation in industry and I hope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you will agree that I might develop what is, in our opinion, the difference between our conceptions of co-operation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I may agree with the hon. Gentleman there, but he goes far beyond that. I cannot conceive how the matter of American aid can possibly affect an internal question of this sort. In any case, the hon. Gentleman has not related his remarks to the Amendment before the House.

Mr. Gammans: I said I would be controversial. I hope I am not giving the impression that I am controversial as to the end we have in view. I hope this Debate has revealed a very wide measure of agreement that the only hope for British industry to play its part, and for this country to maintain and improve its standard of living, is that there should be the greatest possible co-operation in industry. I hope it has also revealed that although there may be differences between us as to how that co-operation should be achieved, we all agree it is essential.

Mr. Follick: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, there is a point I should like to raise. He said that trade unionists in America were entirely against nationalised undertakings.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that question arises.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It has become conventional for the hon. Member who speaks at this stage of a Debate of this character to preface his observations with a remark that it has been a valuable Debate. I often think that remark is frequently made because the hon. Member concerned cannot think of anything else with which to preface his observations. I am only deterred from opening in that way by that reflection.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour—and I should like to pay tribute to his devoted and continued presence on the Bench opposite, where he has fulfilled the rÔle of Casabianca without, perhaps, all the disadvantages but with all the devotion to duty of that character—will agree that this has been a very remarkable Debate in that hon. Members, as a whole, have succeeded in sustaining a discussion of deep interest without, except occasionally, becoming unduly controversial. It has been a Debate remarkable for the number of speeches made from both sides


of the House by hon. Members with practical experience of industry at all levels.
It has been a remarkable Debate for two first-class maiden speeches. Those who heard my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr), I think, were immensely impressed—whether they agreed with his views or not is not material—both by his patent sincerity and his obvious grasp of certain of the practical necessities of our industrial life. I hope I may be allowed also to pay tribute to another maiden speaker, the hon Member for Deptford (Mr. J. Cooper), since I have the distinction of being his Parliamentary representative. It is a rare experience for an hon. Member to be able to pay such a tribute to a constituent. I might perhaps remark in parenthesis that I well remember the location of the hon. Gentleman's house in my constituency, since by a curious chance it was the only house in that particular road which during the recent General Election did not display one of my window bills.
We have had contributions from both sides, with Members speaking from their practical experience. I know that all hon. Members listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) because they know that he speaks with such immense authority on this subject. If I may be allowed to do so, I would recommend to those hon. Members who were not able to be present during his speech this afternoon the possibility of reading it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There were many speeches, from my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton (Mr. Amory) and Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Ian Orr-Ewing), and from hon. Members on the other side, too, who addressed themselves practically to this practical problem.
The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), who initiated this Debate, will, I think, agree that he shares with me the quality of not being always strictly non-controversial. I was, therefore, all the more pleased, as one also at least temporarily well behaved, to find how much I agreed not only with the tone of his speech but with the draft of his Amendment. Indeed, I hope I will not do irreparable harm to his chances of the political advancement to which I know he is entitled if I say that the draft of his Amendment bears a resemblance verging upon plagiarism to the Industrial Charter.

Only, if I may say so, the slight grammatical superiority of the document over the Amendment offers to the hon. Member a reasonable possibility of establishing a defence if an action were brought against him by Lord Woolton.
I would seriously ask hon. Members—and this perhaps is the most significant thing about this Debate—to note the close connection in sense and content between the words of the Amendment which the hon. Member put down and the words of the Industrial Charter. The Industrial Charter says:
We wish to see a wider extension of the joint production committees which received a fresh impetus during the war. Too many have been allowed to fall into disuse at a time when they should have been extended and should be giving rise to a new form of consultation at higher levels and on wider topics. Joint consultative committees of this type are basic to our conception of economic democracy.
We therefore started this Debate, as we are finishing it, on the basis that between the two main parties of this House there is substantial agreement upon the procedure to be followed, with differences perhaps only of emphasis on different aspects of the proposal.
I should like to draw attention to the great importance of the comments upon that which were made by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), who I regret to see is not now in his place, but who, as we know, when he was at the Ministry of Supply, played such a distinguished part in encouraging this movement. The hon. Gentleman said—I think I am paraphrasing him rightly—"It is all very well to put these things into policies; what about their implementation?" That, of course, is the crux of the matter. The hon. Member for Jarrow rightly has indicated that these proposals must be put forward for voluntary application. Therefore, no political party can compel, or could wisely attempt to compel, their institution. All that a political party can do and, indeed, all that a Government can do, to encourage their formation, is to create the intellectual climate, the climate of opinion, in which their establishment flourishes.
It is not really fair, therefore, to criticise either the proposals of the party to which I belong, or, indeed, the policy of His Majesty's Government on the ground that this process has not gone


on as rapidly as all of us would desire. It is of the essence of these organisations that they grow gradually, that they grow by establishing a tradition—and tradition cannot be established, as an American university recently sought to establish one, by posting a notice that it was a tradition of the university that undergraduates did not walk upon the grass of the quadrangle, with an additional note that the tradition would come into effect at nine o'clock on Monday morning.
Traditions have to grow naturally and the great help a Government can give—and of course the Government are in a much stronger position to do it than is an Opposition—is, first of all, by making it clear that it is Government policy and, secondly, by giving it every encouragement in the sphere where Government action can act most directly, that is, in the industries directly or indirectly under the Government. I hope that when the Minister replies, as he will in a few moments, he will tell us what action he now proposes to take to accelerate this process in that sphere of our economic life in which, in the nature of things, the Government have a greater say than in the private sphere of industry.
The hon. Member for Rotherham was a little less than fair, I thought, to British industry as a whole. Of course, British industry varies from one extreme to another. Another hon. Member, I think it was the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd), brought up the case of a bank with a foreign name. Whether it has an English ownership I really do not know, but of course it is perfectly easy to find examples of employers conducting themselves somewhat perversely on the subject of the recognition of unions. Indeed, if one were seeking for an example in that direction, it would not be necessary to look further than the Government Front Bench.
But, equally, there are industries in which joint consultation has been carried very far, and I should like to remind the House of the way in which it is conducted in a company which will, I think, be known to a good many hon. Members—the Birmingham Small Arms Company. Their joint production consultative and advisory committee discusses such subjects as the following—and I ask hon.

Members to note them: maximum utilisation of existing machinery, improvements in methods of production, efficient use of the maximum number of production hours, elimination of defective work and waste, efficient use of material supplies and efficient use of safety precautions and devices. That is merely one example and it is perfectly possible to find other firms equally progressive. While the picture is, therefore, not as good as we should like to see it, it is perhaps not quite as bad as some hon. Members apparently have felt.
Before we part from this subject, we should clear our minds as to what it is that this joint consultation is to do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston said, it is not a substitute for efficient management; it is a very useful adjunct to it, but it is dangerous in any organisation to blur the edges of responsibility. It is dangerous to give management an excuse for failure. It is dangerous to take away from those who manage a concern absolute responsibility for the success or failure of that concern, and I am glad to see that the Government themselves followed the principle I have indicated when they arranged the administration of the industries which have been nationalised. They have made it perfectly clear that responsibility for the administration of those industries rests squarely on the shoulders of the boards concerned, and that is rightly so.
Equally, it is dangerous—and here I agree with an hon. Member opposite—when consultation strays over the boundary into the sphere of negotiations on wages and conditions. Anything is dangerous which interferes with the smooth working of our system of negotiations between organisations of workers and employers on the subject of wages and conditions. The smooth working of that system is vital to modern industry. It is dangerous to do anything that interferes with that smooth working, and it is necessary to watch in case, in their zeal, consultative committees, production committees, do stray over that boundary, because if they do there is a danger of friction which all of us would regret.
The immense value, it seems to me, of this process is that it brings, as it is so difficult to bring in modern industry, management and men—at any rate, some of the men—face to face. It is terribly


easy to hate and dislike people we do not know, people of whom one merely sees the signature at the bottom of a document. It is terribly difficult, Sir, really to hate people whom you are seeing regularly. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite must not flatter themselves on the regularity of their attendance.
However, I think that the example of this House is in point of fact, a very good one on the point I am trying to make. I think that a great many hon. Members opposite, when they were first elected Members of this House, came here feeling that any Conservative Member of this House must inevitably be a being of immense wealth—I sometimes wish, in that connection, that they were right—and a person completely destitute of any ordinary, decent human feeling. I am certain that some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House came here in the belief that every Socialist Member was a Bolshevik run mad.
I think that most of us—I see there are exceptions: very recent exceptions—on the whole have come—and it is one of the immense values of this House—not to agree with each other, but to respect each other; and I believe that what this House does for hon. Members on both sides, zealous and sincere politicians of widely differing views though we all are, can be done for what the right hon. Gentleman calls, though I regret the phrase, the "two sides of industry." If we are meeting people regularly round the table, it does become very much easier to understand that they are human beings trying to do their best, and not the embodiment of Satanic forces. Therefore, I would myself put first this possibility of personal contact which joint consultation brings about.
However, I do deplore the phrase that I myself inadvertently used a moment ago, "the two sides of industry." I must say that the Minister is, perhaps, an even more regular offender. It is surely essential—and here again these committees can so much help to this end—to realise that there are not two sides in industry; but that they are but two aspects of the same organisaion; and that both sides depend for their future upon the success of that industry. It is indeed, I think, the fact that it is the worker in industry who suffers the worse if that industry

fails. His interests, therefore, are more perhaps even than his employer's bound up with the success of that industry, because the employer may well have investments in other industry while the worker has very often invested his particular skill in that particular trade.
The more these committees can make it clear that there is no essential antagonism between the workers and the managements, between the workers and the employers, and that, on the contrary, they are engaged in different aspects of the identical job, the more will these committees conduce to the success of industry and to all those engaged in it, and, what is more important, conduce to the economic survival of our nation.
Let us say quite frankly that there is much to regret in our country's past. I do not believe that any hon. Member of this House can honestly look back on the past of his side of industry without viewing certain incidents on his own side with regret. But I do beg of hon. Members opposite not to dwell too much upon the feuds or fears of the past. The wise man does not allow his attitude to be dominated by them; the wise man surely uses them merely as warnings for the future. If these committees, by their extension and their development, can do something to prevent the antagonism which, to our sorrow and to our loss, has grown up in our industrial system—though it is less today than it was—if these committees can do something to reduce that, they will be justified, and justified scores of times over. I hope they will not be used as a means simply of perpetuating these old feuds, but that they will be used far more as a means of focussing the loyalty and the co-operation of everybody in industry to their common task.
This has been an unusual, and I believe it may well be an historic, Debate because the House has engaged itself, not in a controversy as to the imposition by legislation of restrictions upon the citizen, but rather by way of debate and discussion has sought to develop public opinion in a direction favourable to the interests of the nation as a whole. A great deal of emphasis has been put upon the increased efficiency which joint consultation brings. I do not propose to add anything on that, except to say this—and I was reminded of it by words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton.
When that great leader of men Lord Montgomery was seeking to build up the morale of the Eighth Army, he spent an infinity of time upon telling his troops, not only about their own job but about the campaign as a whole. He did not do that out of a well-meaning desire to interest them. He did it because he knew that soldiers will put a little extra into the attack on the hill in front of them if they know they are attacking that hill, not because their commanders cannot thick of anything else to order them to do but because it is part of a movement whose purpose is to pin down the enemy on the hill while an armoured column swings round its left flank.
That technique of Lord Montgomery, whose success is now written across the face of the world, has a lesson for us in industry. I believe that we get so much more efficient work from people—as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) said in his very interesting speech—if they know the purpose of their work, and if they know how it fits into the whole pattern of their industry, and how their industry fits into the whole pattern of the nation.
But I put much more weight on the other aspect of the matter—the social aspect. It is the tragedy of our industrial age that so many people can find so little satisfaction in work of a repetitive and specialist nature; that they inevitably regard their working hours as hours to be got through somehow, with the compensation of artificial entertainments outside working hours. We want to get back to the spirit in which people can find a satisfaction in work, because I believe that a man who does not get pleasure and satisfaction out of his work is having only half the value in life to which he is entitled. I believe that by enabling people to realise the importance of their work, to realise the truth of the slogan which the Lord President when he was Minister of Home Security in 1940, plastered all over London—" It All Depends on Me"—and to realise that the individual job at the individual bench matters, and matters enormously, we can do more to build up the self-respect and the sense of responsibility of the citizen than by any comparable means.
I venture this prophecy: that this Debate is not only a helpful thing, but is

a Debate which in the future people may look back upon as an historic event, because we have seen the two great parties in the State getting together to urge this wholesome and hopeful development upon our people, to urge upon industry as a whole to forget the feuds and follies of the past, and to realise that there is no problem which cannot be solved by reasonable people in reasonable discussion. I believe that we have the chance. Let us, in words that the poet Tennyson very nearly used, ring in the age of common sense.

9.30 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I am proud to have the opportunity of making the winding-up speech tonight at this meeting of the nation's supreme joint industrial council, for that is what it has now become. Before dealing with some of the points that have been raised, and, I hope, making clear the action of the Government through the Ministry of Labour on this subject, I think it is right that I should refer to the two excellent maiden speeches of the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. J. Cooper) and the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr). They were particularly interesting because they were both speaking of exactly the same kind of experience approached from a different angle. They gave the House useful information and made a valuable contribution to the Debate.
I should like, first, to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). When the hon. Gentleman gets up, some of us have to duck because we do not always know what is coming. Tonight, we were wondering what line he would take. I most sincerely compliment him on the speech which he has made, which was a most valuable contribution. It was his speech which prompted me to refer to the House tonight as the nation's supreme joint industrial council. Much that he said will be of great value to the Minister of Labour in his task of cultivating and advocating the extension of these joint councils in industry. This Debate will be regarded as a Parliamentary decision that the House of Commons desire that this should be done. I know that there is a certain section of industry which will do their best to decry everything which has been said tonight and to


try to use this joint council machinery for their own purposes, but the unanimity which has been shown will, I think, help us to overcome that.
The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames referred to the plagiarism of the Amendment compared with the Industrial Charter. Perhaps the same can be said in connection with the Whitley Council reports which come to us from time to time, so we have apparently gone to the same sources. He said that no Government could do more than encourage the formation of these councils. That is what we propose to do and are doing. I will tell the House about that in a moment. We cannot do more than encourage; any attempt at compulsion would fail at the beginning.
One other point which he mentioned—and I think his words were valuable—was in reference to the value of meeting around the table. Workmen may know the manager only by name or through seeing him walk through their place of work, and they may think of him in harsh terms, but when they sit opposite to him, a mutual respect often grows. Contact brings understanding and then respect. We see that in this House. We understand and respect though we may not often reach agreement. I am a happy man tonight to be able to wind up a Debate in which there has been so much agreement.
The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) went a little outside the spirit of the Amendment, and tried to bring a little liveliness into the Debate. He did not succeed, so I do not think we need bother any more about his speech. I was interested in the opening speech of the right hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale), and not merely because he, like myself, is a printer. Printers are a bit clannish; we all go to the same chapel together, even if we do not go on Sundays. He used several phrases in his speech that will be useful. Anyone who knows anything about workshop life knows that a happy shop will do better than one without happiness. We want these good relations.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that people spoke of the art of man management. Man management is not an art—it is all very arty-crafty for those who write treatises about it—but just

plain common sense. Another thing he said was that these councils should be given the facts, which reminds me of the slogan used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) during the war:
Give us the tools and we will finish the job.
If there is any trouble, then give the committee the facts and they will find a way out.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to a booklet that had come into his possession with the title "Ministry of Labour Whitley at the Crossroads." I am sorry that this has been brought up. It may seem as if there is a real difference of opinion, but by referring to the "Federation News," which is a publication of the Federation of the Ministry of Labour staff, I hope I shall be able to remove from his mind—I know that the Ministry is still very dear to him—any suggestion that there is any misunderstanding or ill-feeling in the matter. The vice-chairman and leader of the staff side of the Whitley Council, stated, on 17th January:
It is impossible to cast away a machine that has served the staff well through 10 historic years without paying tribute to the unsparing work of the members of both sides. … One achievement was speed. There had been a change in outlook manifested in a keenness to make progress quickly, often by informal discussion in small committees. This extension of informal working has brought in its train an increase in friendly relationships.‖It would work well because the Whitley spirit was present.
Although there may have been one or two arguments, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take the assurance from me that we have not fallen down on industrial relations in the Ministry.

Mr. McCorquodale: I am very pleased to hear it.

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) made a very valuable contribution to the Debate. Anyone who reads this Debate will be able to obtain some very valuable information from the speeches that have been made. He said that there must be no feeling of complaint, and that the first job of a production committee was to remove any complaints, for example, deciding whether the tea was too hot or too cold and whether the lavatory or washing facilities were adequate. There


used to be an old saying that an empty house is better than a bad tenant. It is best to get rid of the complaints first before discussing the future.
Several Members have stressed the fact that if we are to establish valuable joint production committees it must be done with the full recognition of the trade unions. By that means we shall brush away most of the difficulties. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory) also gave us the benefit of his experience. He referred to the fact that I paid a visit to his factory. I had a talk with the workpeople there, and I was most impressed. I found, as I do elsewhere, a really personal interest in joint consultation, bringing about a spirit of which everyone could be proud. He said that if we carry on like we are doing we shall have the best industrial relations in the world. I do not know much about grammar, but I would delete the words "we shall have" and substitute the words "we have," because I am sure no country in the world has as good a relationship as that which exists in this country.
Perhaps I may now traverse rather briefly some history so that we may bring the matter into proper perspective, although many of the things I am about to say have already been said by hon. Members who have spoken. We must go back, not so far back as the Whitley Committee, which set the pace or set the target, but to December, 1940, when my predecessor in office, who is now the Foreign Secretary, said:
It is my considered view that, in order to avoid conditions which cause discontent, there should be established in all industrial establishments standing joint arrangements for regular discussion between managements and properly elected representatives of the work-people on matters in which they are mutually interested.
That set the pace in war-time and the new machinery began to be built, first in the coal mines and then in shipbuilding. In 1942 came the agreement, to which the hon. Member for Edgbaston referred, on joint consultative machinery in the engineering industries. The building and civil engineering industries followed, and gradually there was established what we like to call this "modern technique of management."
The war ended, and the great war-time impulse of preservation, which urged on the construction of these committees,

began to die away. Some of them had not existed long enough to get their roots firmly fixed in industry, and as we got away from the war so they began to fall away. Many of them, however, remained. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames referred to B.S.A. and their constitution. Many of the committees which have remained were not in such a flourishing condition in the early days after the war, but they have come into full force and gained impetus and value by the slight slowing up which some of them had at that time. We built them up again, and we may find now that it is necessary to start rebuilding.
One question that has frequently been referred to is whether we should build from the top or from the bottom. We are trying to do both. We want to get the plans through at the top and then to start working at the bottom. The way we are proceeding is this: We have a National Joint Advisory Council, which meets at the Ministry of Labour under my chairmanship. It consists of 17 representatives of the British Employers' Confederation and 17 of the Trades Union Congress. To that Council, which, during the war, rendered tremendous service, we go for advice on all matters which affect industry; and very valuable is their advice. We asked for their sponsorship of a campaign to encourage joint works committees. They were not in a hurry to come to a decision—they never give a snap decision. The request was submitted, debated, adjourned, brought forward again and finally adopted by them as a recommendation that they would welcome suitable machinery being established for the regular interchange of views provided, first:
that such machinery would be purely voluntary and advisory in character.
As it happens, that has been stressed by every Member who has spoken here tonight. I have not heard anyone argue that we should attempt to have any compulsion.
The second condition was that the committees
would not deal with questions relating to terms and conditions of employment which are normally dealt with through the ordinary machinery of joint negotiations.
Once again they anticipated this House, because everybody who has touched upon


this subject tonight has said the same thing. The third condition was that
it would be left to each industry through its ordinary negotiating arrangements to adjust the form of machinery best suited to its own particular circumstances, and to decide in particular whether such machinery could best be established at the factory level, or cover a wider area.
Those proposals were adopted. They where sent out to the various organisations concerned, and we then conducted an inquiry.
We put upon one of our headquarters officials the special duty of handling this matter, contacting industry and following the matter up. National organisations were approached and were told that our services at headquarters would be available to them. We asked that the national organisations should give attention to the recommendations of the National Joint Advisory Council. At the same time, jointly with the regional boards for industry, we were convening meetings in the different areas to stimulate interest in the subject. Hon. Members who have asked tonight that we should take on more active work in the regions may rest assured that that work is already in progress and has been for some time.
Having got national agreements, to some of which I will refer, we secured copies and sent them out to our industrial relations officers so that if a firm should want to establish a joint works committee and wanted information they could get it from our employment exchanges or regional officers, who would tell them what was the system adopted in their industry. It is not the job of the Ministry to advocate a particular kind of constitution, but to urge that a constitution should be adopted and, if they ask for it, to provide them with the one for their industry. If there is not one for their industry we have a specimen form of constitution which we supply to them.
We have organised 42 conferences on joint consultation and most of them are attended by representatives from firms which have joint committees in operation. They are able from their own experience to advise others of the kind of work they should undertake. Of the 54 industries we have approached on this matter 51 have taken steps to set up joint machinery, or have had such machinery already in being. Some adopt a constitution which has to be followed fairly rigidly by their local areas, while others

say they have no objection to a joint council being formed and to the adoption of machinery which is thought most suitable in the local interests.
I wish to refer, briefly, to the value of works councils in operation. I have noticed that in some councils I have attended the members of the works committee are called councillors and if they are referred to on the notice board, or in the works, they are always described as "Councillor Mr.—" or "Councillor Miss—." That is only a little thing, but it is important. We are proud to put the initials M.P. after our names and they like to advertise themselves as councillors I had intended to dilate on the kind of things that work councils can do, but they have been referred to so much, especially by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, who, as I have said, quoted the example of B.S.A.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many other factories were pioneering works committees, stewards' committees, and so on, long before B.S.A.?

Mr. Isaacs: I am aware of that, but I drew attention to it because the kind of thing to which the hon. Member referred in the constitution of B.S.A. has been adopted in the constitutions of most joint committees.
I wish to show the kind of spirit we find. This time last year I was in the West of England on a visit to the china clay industry and a manager came to me saying, "I have had the dickens of a time"—that was not the word he used, but it was something like it. He said "We have taken an order for 3,000 tons of china clay for despatch to America in so many days. We have everything ready to load on the ship but they have sent a cable asking us to make the order 5,000 tons. It is a very difficult job." I asked, "What are you doing about it?" and he said, "I have a works committee; I have left it to them." It was a simple matter; he felt that as there was a works committee they would get him out of his difficulties.
I had experience of a similar case at a famous ship-repairing firm on the south coast of England. When I mention the fact that they were building a forepart on to the back half of a ship—they had only had half sent to them—some hon.


Members may recognise the firm. The management told me that it seemed as though they would lose the contract because the time they had quoted for completing the job was beaten by the dates quoted by foreign competitors. The firm called their works committee together and explained the problem to them. The men agreed that somehow or other they would do the job in the required time. I learned afterwards that they did so. I mention those cases to show that if there is understanding, a good spirit, a real belief in the firm and a real belief on the part of the firm in its workmen, many of these difficulties can be overcome.
I have been asked tonight about some of the industries with which the Government themselves are associated. I had intended to mention several of the nationalised industries, but my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) referred fully to the gas industry, so I need not mention that. I should like to tell the House what is being done now by British Railways. In issue No. 2 of their "Transport News" they say:
Through consultation management and staff can discuss together the future of our industry.
In another paragraph it is stated:
The Executive has undertaken whenever possible to give advance notice of its future plans to the staff concerned, so that there can be free and frank discussion about them.
In another part of the same paper, Mr. John Benstead, the Deputy-Chairman, writes:
First, what sort of consideration is going to be given to the views of the men on the job? Will the management take into account the wealth of practical experience that often lies behind those views? My reply is that the management of British Transport are pledged to a real exchange of views wherever that is possible.
These statements are published and issued to the industry, and as some of my hon. Friends have said, there is now growing up in the British transport industry a better sense of joint understanding than has ever previously existed.
One hon. Member made reference to the fact that we often see plenty of Press publicity about discord and misunderstanding, but not much publicity about harmony and the good things that are happening. I have been mixed up with the newspapers of this country for a long

time, and I should like to say what I have said in some of the conferences I have had with them. So far as good understanding in factories is concerned, if British newspapers were to preach what they practice there would be a great deal better understanding in this country. I say that because of the understanding, the relationship, the esprit de corps, the feeling that the paper must come out, which runs right through British newspapers. Take the example of the men who get the newspaper out, however late the news comes in. They know that the papers will catch the trains and other transport because there is a good spirit in their offices. If they would only preach, in their newspapers, the kind of good relationships which exist in their offices, we could achieve a good deal more understanding than is done by drawing attention to discord and misunderstanding.
I have been asked about publishing a new industrial relations handbook. We will give consideration to that. I have here Supplement No. 3, dealing with joint consultation in industry. It sets out all the new agreements made and the new regulations adopted by the various industries in relation to joint council work up to December. It contains a few words of exhortation at the beginning, but, in the main, it contains a list of organisations, industries, etc., which have adopted these schemes. As an illustration of its usefulness, I can tell the House that we sold 4,500 copies in the six weeks after its issue. It is now completely out of stock and has to be reprinted. In giving an undertaking to consider the publication of an up to date document, I would ask that this be allowed to wait for a few months until we can get the position settled in the other one or two outstanding industries.
I want to call attention to one point which, in my view, may have had a retarding effect on progress in this matter. The House will doubtless have noticed that when most people talk about joint consultation in industry, the implication invariably is that joint consultation is something between top management and the rank and file operatives instead of being a recognised managerial technique permeating throughout the organisation and embracing all levels of personnel; The directors taking their immediate subordinates into consultation and those


subordinates acting similarly until the whole supervisory line, down to the foreman, is brought effectively into the picture.
In my opinion, the test of a genuine belief in joint consultation is the degree of its universality in an organisation, and not just the existence of a joint committee with the manual workers only. It cannot occasion surprise that junior members of managements and foremen, all who form part of the production team, technicians, draughtsmen, etc., should be brought in, and other sections of a staff look cynically on a committee where higher management bring the rank and file into the picture to the careless exclusion of intermediate management and other classes. In our view a joint works committee should be a joint works committee and include representatives of everybody employed in the firm, and not merely certain sections of them.
Having given this undertaking so far as the Amendment is concerned, and having accepted completely the idea of the hon. Member who moved it and having had valuable information and guidance from hon. Members in all parts of the House in carrying on this work, I trust that with that assurance my hon. Friend will be content to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: While conceding the importance of the printing industry, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he has anything to say about joint consultation in the cotton industry in Lancashire?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, but not at this stage. We shall not put up this matter for discussion in the House. We shall deal with the cotton industry in the ordinary way.

Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the statements by the Minister, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Chetwynd: I am sure we have had a most instructive Debate and that the House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Femyhough) for taking such a leading part in this subject. I hope that the views enunciated by the Minister in his final speech will be noted throughout the country and throughout industry as a whole, not only in the trade union movement and by many of those people who have pioneered these efforts for joint consultation, but throughout all the ranks of management as well.
If only some of these lessons put forward are taken into account, I am sure that the productive efforts in the country will enable us to overcome our economic difficulties much more easily. From my own experience in an industrial area, I can say that where joint consultation machinery has been put into practice there is a much happier atmosphere prevailing in the factories; and production as a whole shows a great increase, which is something we would all desire. I am sure that this Debate and the subject chosen by my hon. Friend on this Supply Day has achieved a very useful purpose. If all the things which have been ventilated in the House today can be noted widely in the Press and in the technical journals, we shall have achieved a very useful purpose for industry.
In the North-East, which my hon. Friend knows so well, we have a record of industrial harmony. It is true to say that on Tees-side there has been no major industrial upheaval of any kind. This shows plainly that management and men have been working together throughout the war years—

It being Ten o'Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING, SLOUGH

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I wish to take advantage of this Adjournment to draw the attention of the House to the housing situation in the borough of Slough. I do this in no parochial spirit. I do not make any claim for Slough which would be unfair to other towns or to the countryside. I appreciate the difficulty of the Government in procuring the raw materials and the labour for housing, and in using them effectively. I recognise that it is necessary to allocate capital, material and labour so that they are balanced in the national economy to meet requirements, to maintain full employment and to fill the dollar gap.
Nevertheless, I say that there are circumstances in the borough of Slough which justify me in drawing the special attention of the House to them. I begin by filling in the background of the situation. There must be many hon. Members who can remember, as they travelled on the Great Western line in the days immediately after the First World War, the mile of dumps of broken and battered vehicles from the British Army which were then deposited there. That dump was transformed immediately after the First World War into the first modern trading estate in the country.
As a consequence, there was a phenomenal increase in the population of Slough. What had been little more than a village or a small country town became almost overnight a large industrial centre. The population in 1921 was 16,000; by 1939 it had grown to 55,000, and today it is 68,000. At the beginning of that great advance in its population, there was not the foresight to envisage the housing which would be required to accommodate the new population. The trading estate attracted to it, in the late 20's and the early 30's, hundreds of workers from the depressed areas in South Wales, Northern Ireland, Lancashire, the North-East Coast and Scotland.
The authorities in the town at that period, not foreseeing the great advance

in the population and the need for more houses, did not then plan the necessary sewerage which could accommodate the greater housing. It was not until the years immediately after the last war that plans of that kind were prepared. The result of that situation is that, unless something most exceptional is done, in the month of June this year housing will come to an absolute stop in Slough. There will not be a single house erected in that borough from the month of June and for nine months afterwards, and that in a town where large numbers of the population are already living in railway coaches and in Army hutments, where overcrowding of five and more persons per room is frequent, and where, indeed, one in five and perhaps one in four of the families in the town have their names on the waiting list for houses. It is because of that appallingly unique situation in the borough of Slough, where, despite these extraordinary needs, housing may completely stop in the month of June for nine months, that I am now making a particular appeal to the Minister of Health.
I have discussed this matter at considerable length with the town clerk of the borough, the borough surveyor and the borough engineer, and we have considered many plans by which this situation may be saved so that housing may go on. We have discussed whether it would be possible temporarily to apply the cesspool system or the septic tank system so that houses may be built, and, when the sewerage plan is developed, to attach these cesspools and septic tanks to it; but I am informed that there is danger of pollution of the River Thames, which is near, and, in the case of the septic tanks, that the relief to the sewerage system would be inadequate.
There is one further suggestion which is in my mind and which I want to put to the Minister of Health. It is that it might be possible, even though the sewerage system is inadequate to meet the new houses which are built, still to build those new houses and so avoid a gap in time, and, having built them, at a later stage to link them with the sewerage system when it is constructed. The argument against that course is that squatters may adopt these houses before that time, or that they would deteriorate in that period.
It is my view that, if the people of Slough were informed of the difficulties of the situation, if a town's meeting were held and the position made clear, and if the co-operation of the people was called for in order to protect the houses that were erected so that when the sewerage system is there it might be linked with houses that people could occupy, there would be such co-operation from the people of Slough that the invasion of squatters or the deterioration of the houses would not occur. The houses would all be in a limited space, and would seem to me to be able to receive the necessary police supervision to prevent anything of an untoward character happening to these houses.
There is one complication of the position in Slough to which I must draw the Minister's attention. The London County Council are planning a large housing estate within the borders of the town to accommodate 17,500 people, and if that large housing estate is commenced while there is an absence of this sewerage system, or while it is still inadequate, it will mean that the terribly overcrowded population now in Slough will have to postpone still further their hopes of obtaining houses.
The sewerage plan which is now being carried through could, by the year 1953, accommodate a population of 100,000. At that point we will be able to take all the population which the London County Council wish to bring into the area. Before that period, we will be able to increase the population for whom houses can he provided, but I want to draw the attention of the Ministry to that particular difficulty in the meantime. I would also point out to the Minister that there will be very great difficulty if housing ends in June, or is seriously slowed up, in maintaining the necessary availability of labour. Labour for housing has now to be brought from other towns—there is no local labour available—and, if that becomes dispersed by the ending of the housing system, when the opportunity to build houses recurs the position is going to be extremely difficult.
Therefore, I want to make a number of specific requests to the Ministry of Health. The first is that the Ministry should recognise this exceptional and desperate condition in Slough, and should

offer all possible help in this extraordinary difficulty. I want to say at once that I find that local officials in Slough are highly appreciative of the way in which the Ministry of Health have co-operated in this matter, but I am going to suggest at this particular stage that the Ministry should make a still further gesture, and should indicate to the Town Council of Slough their recognition of the exceptional need and offer their consultation and help along any channel through which that help can pass.
Secondly, I want to ask that, in relation to the proposed London County Council housing estate, the Ministry of Health should keep a very watchful eye on the situation. In December, 1948, there was a public inquiry under the joint auspices of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, and on 14th July, 1949, the Ministry of Town and Country Planning wrote:
Nor does it appear that the phasing of the L.C.C.'s proposals need involve any risk of prejudice to the proper development of Slough since the carrying out of the scheme would be dependent upon the provision of adequate sewerage facilities.
I am quite sure that the L.C.C. will appreciate the position I have described, but I ask the Ministry to keep a watchful eye on that situation, and, if necessary, to act in order to prevent any worsening of the position by the development of new houses from outside.
The third point which I wish to put to the Ministry is that they should extend the fullest priorities of materials to enable the new sewerage system to be completed within the shortest possible period. Again, I pay my tribute to the Ministry. The local officials say that those priorities have been constantly given. There are difficulties, however; there is the immediate difficulty of the supply of cement, which is holding up the development of the sewerage scheme, and in future months there will be the difficulty of the cast-iron pipes necessary for the drainage system. I am asking the Ministry of Health to anticipate that position and not merely to allocate on paper, but to be ready to secure for the town the supply of cast-iron piping necessary for that drainage system as soon as the immediate crisis of the absence of proper sewerage is met.
I do not ask necessarily for a reply tonight, but my next request to the Ministry is that they should consider sympathetically the proposal I have made that, even if the sewerage is not there at present, house building shall not stop. The absolute stopping of housing in Slough will have a disastrous psychological effect. If housing can go on, and can be linked to the sewerage as soon as it is available, the people will feel that the best has been made of the situation. In view of the extraordinary difficulties in Slough that I have described, I ask the Minister to accept the course of being prepared to allocate houses upon those lines, if the Ministry are convinced that arrangements can be made in Slough to prevent those houses deteriorating or to prevent their being occupied by invaders who are not entitled to them.
My next request to the Ministry is that, as soon as the situation eases and the sewerage scheme develops, the Ministry will be willing to allocate houses to Slough on a larger scale, in order to compensate for the absence of house building, or the diminished house building, during the next few months. I ask the Ministry that, in allowing Slough a larger allocation, they will also look into the problem of providing the materials and encouraging the labour so that the larger programme can be fulfilled long before 1953 by when, it was hoped, the sewerage system may be completed. It should be possible to increase the housing programme considerably as provision of sewerage becomes more adequate. I ask the Ministry to make sure that the materials are available for such larger programme and to encourage the availability of labour.
There is one further point to complete the picture. There is just one hope that the situation may be saved in June. Our civil engineer, who is carrying out the new sewerage scheme, is attempting to apply a very bold method by which it is hoped that 20 acres may be freed for the deposit of sewage. With professional caution he will not be able to say for one month whether that experiment will be successful. Should it be successful, we shall be able to proceed with 60 or 70 houses, but even those 60 or 70 will be a great limitation upon the ordinary allocation, and that relief to the situation

will not in any way decrease the general appeal I have made.
I recognise that my final point is not only a matter for my hon. Friend's Ministry but one on which he must consult with others. I ask the Minister if the time has not come for the Government to consider whether there should not be an increased allocation of capital investment in materials and labour for house building within the general national economy. I understand the claims of the export drive and the claims of capital investment in industrial development, but I want to put to the Government very seriously indeed that an ill-housed people cannot be expected to maintain the production drive which is at present proceeding.
In Slough our vast industrial establishments, particularly in the trading estate, are working to capacity to fill the ships today, just as they used to produce the tools to finish the job during the war. But I say to the Government: if this is to go on, the sense of frustration from the present housing overcrowding and ill-equipment must be removed. Our people in Slough remember the frustration of the depressed areas from which they come. Now a new sense of despair is weighing them down, and as I read the letters which come from my constituents I share that sense of despair. I will read one letter to the Minister. It is from a woman in my constituency:
We have been on the Slough Council's housing list since January, 1941, and we were married in September, 1939, and have never had a home of our own. All we have now is two small upstairs rooms with cooking facilities downstairs. I am expecting my second child next month and my eldest child is nearly three. I am wondering where I am going to put the baby to sleep during that time as we have no room for another cot in our bedroom; in fact my daughter is ready for a bed but that is utterly out of the question. I cannot even contemplate buying a pram as I shall have nowhere to keep it and I tremble to think of the arguments my landlord and I will be having when the infant cries at night. We aren't really asking for the moon, are we, after nearly eleven years spent in other people's houses?
If war were declared tomorrow, nothing would stand in the way of supplying the needs of the Armed Forces. I am asking the Minister to allow nothing to stand in the way in the war against ill-housing at the present time.

10.23 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) for the constructive way in which he has raised the question of the very real and urgent housing needs of his own constituency. We sincerely appreciate the difficulties in his area, which he has clearly outlined to the House tonight. I think it is true to say that by the time the last sewerage scheme was completed in Slough, early in 1938, it was already inadequate owing to the vast development of industry in that area and the great surge of population that came in from outside, particularly from the old distressed areas of this country. In addition, of course, during the war years there was another quite unexpected rapid industrial development in Slough which added still further to the difficulties.
Since the war the local authority and the Ministry of Health have done their utmost to press forward with this new sewerage scheme upon which housing development as a whole undoubtedly depends. As my hon. Friend has rightly said, we have done our utmost to help in the phasing of the delivery of materials and to help, with the Ministry of Labour, in providing labour for this vital work. I would say at once to my hon. Friend that I am most anxious to review even now the delivery promises that have been given on this particular project, because we understand how vital it is. While I certainly cannot give any promise or pledge at this moment, we will certainly see, even after all the efforts which we have put into it, if anything more can be done to speed up still further the delivery of the vital plant and materials upon which so much depends. Apart from that, if the local authority will get into touch with us about any of the other difficulties which my hon. Friend mentioned, either about lack of labour or about cement—or, of course, on the problem of cast-iron piping—we shall certainly take the matter up and help, as we have already helped in previous cases.
My hon. Friend raised the question of L.C.C. building in the area. I can assure him that we are in very close touch with the L.C.C. on this matter and I can give him the quite firm guarantee that developments there will not in any way endanger the sewerage position and that, in fact,

the work will be so phased as to avoid any further difficulties for Slough. The hon. Member also put forward certain proposals about the use of septic tanks. I will look into any proposals which the local authority put forward, but I am afraid I cannot offer very much hope in this direction. From an outside view of the matter it seems to me, from what knowledge we have of the Slough area, that it would probably mean just as much pumping and use, in the same way, of the already inadequate existing sewerage system, and that would not get us very much further forward.
My hon. Friend further suggested that we should give approval to the building of houses without sewerage facilities in order to avoid any dismissal of workers, because that is one of the great problems in that area, and I quite understand the point he made. Again, however, I cannot be very hopeful on this point. Where we have, unfortunately, had to build houses without proper facilities either of water or sewerage, our experience has been that when attempts were made to avoid their being occupied before the full facilities were provided the results have not been at all encouraging. Any proposals which the local authority care to put forward will, however, be examined by us.
I was also asked whether we could give particularly sympathetic consideration to larger allocations in the future. We will, of course, certainly look at the position of Slough, remembering the difficulties which they are facing now and the inevitable inadequacies in the amount of house building they are able to do at present. In thinking of future allocations, as soon as the sewerage problem has been overcome, we shall certainly do our best to provide larger allocations to help Slough to make up for the period of time which they have had to lose.
The last point which my hon. Friend made was on the allocation of capital resources. As he rightly pointed out, this is a very much wider problem, which to some extent was discussed in the House recently. It is not a matter which we can easily discuss on an Adjournment, particularly when there are only one-and-a-half minutes left. I would only say that the Government would be very glad to be able to devote a larger proportion of our capital resources to this most urgent


problem. It is not because of any lack of knowledge of the suffering and the difficulties which are involved in the housing situation today that allocations have been made in a way which is known over the country as a whole, but we have to face demands from other sources for widely different needs in this country—industrial and other needs. We have to make the fairest allocation we can of the resources which are available. Should those resources increase, we shall be only too delighted to increase the amount of house building which can take place in the country.
I hope my hon. Friend will not feel that this has been a wholly disappointing answer. I repeat to him that I shall be very glad to look into the position of priorities for materials for this sewerage scheme and shall do my best to see that delivery is as rapid as possible.

Mr. Brockway: I appreciate my hon. Friend's answer.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Nine Minutes past Ten o'Clock.